EvolutionNews.Org: Reading comprehension skills needed.

61 Responses to “EvolutionNews.Org: Reading comprehension skills needed.”

Bad, on March 26th, 2008 at 10:37 Said:

John West ranks up there on the intellectual coward scale. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him seriously try to argue his accusations in an open forum in recent years: he mostly posts behind cover of commentless blogs and articles, pretty much simply ignoring criticism and debunkings.

These guys just can’t take the heat.
Nimravid, on April 14th, 2008 at 8:25 Said:

You’re not the only one to notice the poor reading comprehension skills exhibited by Evolution News and Views. There was an article on the Grand Canyon’s age a few months ago and if you used their reasoning from that post in a different context you might conclude that a boy who grew one inch in the past year must be one year old.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 4th, 2008 at 5:12 Said:

Clearly there is a case of quote mining here.

Your write:
>It is an indeed an old and decomposing argument that Evolution leads to Facism and Nazism style behaviour.

I read the link to the article above & you left this out:

QUOTE”What is interesting in the above comment is not that Dawkins rejects fascism, but that he apparently believes that Darwinism logically applied to government would lead to fascism. This is a far stronger claim, by the way, than the one made in the preliminary cut of Expelled that I’ve seen. The experts interviewed for the film—including historian Richard Weikart and mathematician David Berlinski—are careful to point out that there is no inevitable connection between Darwinism and what happened in Nazi Germany. But that does not cancel out the fact that Darwinian ideology provided the Nazis with one of their key justifications for sterilizing the “unfit” and killing the handicapped. Darwinism similarly provided a rationale for eugenics crusaders in America, which I write about in my recent book Darwin Day in America.”END QUOTE

So where are the ID people claiming “Evolution leads to Facism and Nazism” & that Dawkins admits to that?
They CLEARLY saying Dawkins admits Darwinism “applied to government would lead to fascism”.

Maybe ID is bunk since I am only now begining to investigate their claims but you guys don’t fill me with confidence you are the best watchdogs again their alledgied “quote mining”. Especially if you do it yourselves.

additionally

It’s true Darwinian ideology “provided” the Nazis with one of their key justifications for sterilizing the “unfit”.
Just as the Bible (& I say this as a Traditional Catholic) “provided” the Crusaders with a justification to slay Jews on their way to liberate the Holy Land.

But as my Father Confessor said “Abuse doesn’t negate correct use”. Maybe if clowns like Dawkins & Hitchens would make these sophmoric conections between religious people & violence then some Theists wouldn’t be tempted to respond in kind?

This is a wake up call to all you “Bright” types to stop using you own best worst argument & start engadging your opponents with the reason & logic you claim to believe in?

Ya think?

edit: should say “WOUNDN’T make these sophmoric conections between religious”.

What can I? Grammer & spelling have never been my strong suit. But I believe my statements are valid.

That’s enough for today.
Matt, on May 4th, 2008 at 8:13 Said:

Where is the quote? Gee, I guess you haven’t seen ‘Expelled’ and read other articles from the Discovery Institute where it seems to be their main argument.

I don’t see where I did any ‘quote mining’, thankyou.

And yes, you do need to work on your spelling and grammar.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 4th, 2008 at 12:18 Said:

Well now that I am at home I can relax & take my time & use my spell check..

Try to process son.

You wrote:
>don’t see where I did any ‘quote mining’, thankyou.

I reply: You WROTE above QUOTE “It is an indeed an old and decomposing argument that Evolution leads to Facism and Nazism style behaviour. “(BTW it’s Fascism with an s and not facism. Also it’s “behavior”, there is no “u”. So maybe YOU better work on your spelling).

Anyway the ACTUAL article from DI you link too (but conveniently don’t fully quote on your blog says QUOTE”What is interesting in the above comment is not that Dawkins rejects fascism, but that he apparently believes that DARWINISM LOGICALLY APPLIED TO GOVERNMENT would lead to fascism.”END QUOTE

So the article you link too (i.e. Dawkins Flip-Flops on Link between Darwinism and Fascism, etc) CLEARLY is in line with WHAT Dawkins believes & has not misrepresented him at all.

YOU cite Dawkins:
QUOTE “That’s like saying that a Quantum Mechanical society would be an anarchy. I hope that those better versed in logic than our Intelligent Design defender, understands the difference between “A Darwinian society would be a fascist state” and “Darwinism leads to Fascism”?END QUOTE

Note the above is YOUR citation of Dawkins not Ben Stein’s & not the DI.

Your wrote:
Where is the quote?

I reply: See above:

>Gee, I guess you haven’t seen ‘Expelled’

I reply: Not yet, but if you did, based on your comprehension skills thus far I am filled with little confidence in you analytic abilities.

>and read other articles from the Discovery Institute where it seems to be their main argument.

I reply: I’m starting to read their articles & upon stumbling on your blog it took me less then a minute to identify your quoting error. My spelling & grammar may suck but I’m 40 & at the risk of blowing my own horn my reading comprehension skills are as sharp as a knife. You however need to work on them a little.

>And yes, you do need to work on your spelling and grammar.

I reply: Again do remember it’s Fascism not facism and it’s “behavior” not behaviour. Son it’s better to be silent & be thought a fool then to Blog without thinking and remove all doubt. Next time try thinking.

BTW don’t feel bad I used my spell check QUITE a lot for this post. go Dr. Who!!
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 4th, 2008 at 12:31 Said:

BTW you should be honest & point out my original post above was actually THREE posts. Lumping it all together makes me look a little foolish. Like I can’t think. Where as keeping them separate shows they where three separate thoughts I did off the cuff. What was that you said about Ben Stein & Co using deceptive editing? Anyway this paragraph starting with BTW is a Post unto itself. I’m done. Resurrect Gallafrey!!!!!

Moderator: Aw, such a terrible crime for me trying to make the comments list look a bit neater and cleaner, then forgetting to add a little note so as not to hurt your precious feelings. Here, have a tissue.
Matt, on May 4th, 2008 at 12:38 Said:

I reply: You WROTE above QUOTE “It is an indeed an old and decomposing argument that Evolution leads to Facism and Nazism style behaviour. “

Yes, indeed I did write that and, indeed, it is true.

(BTW it’s Fascism with an s and not facism. Also it’s “behavior”, there is no “u”. So maybe YOU better work on your spelling).

Ooh, I made a typo with ‘facism’, what a shocker. And yes, there is a ‘u’ in behaviour. It is pretty much only the United States who can’t seem to handle proper English. Just look at the spelling of ‘donut’. Heh.

So the article you link too (i.e. Dawkins Flip-Flops on Link between Darwinism and Fascism, etc) CLEARLY is in line with WHAT Dawkins believes & has not misrepresented him at all.

YOU cite Dawkins:

That’s not Dawkins. That’s John West from the Panda’s Thumb.

Note the above is YOUR citation of Dawkins not Ben Stein’s & not the DI.

I’m not entirely sure you’re understanding the whole point of the DI’s entry at this point in time.
The Article stated that Dawkins stated that evolution applied to government would lead to a fascist state, which is what he said.

The DI then tried to link that statement with the point that (and I quote) “But that does not cancel out the fact that Darwinian ideology provided the Nazis with one of their key justifications for sterilizing the “unfit” and killing the handicapped.”. They cover their asses by saying “are careful to point out that there is no inevitable connection between Darwinism and what happened in Nazi Germany.” but then do almost a backflip and say nearly the complete opposite.

Which, of course, is utter nonsense. What they’re talking about there is Social Darwinism and Eugenics. Neither of which have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution (or Charles Darwin for that matter).
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 4th, 2008 at 17:09 Said:

>That’s not Dawkins. That’s John West from the Panda’s Thumb.

I reply: My error & I made myself look foolish too. I own up to it. (But my principle is the same)

>The Article stated that Dawkins stated that evolution applied to government would lead to a fascist state, which is what he said.

I reply: We already went over this the article said QUOTE”Dawkin’s said…DARWINISM LOGICALLY APPLIED TO GOVERNMENT would lead to fascism.etc” Which obviously it would & clearly Dawkins doesn’t want that. He wants Darwinism to exist only in the Animal Kingdom & not human civilization.

>The DI then tried to link that statement with the point that (and I quote) “But that does not cancel out the fact that Darwinian ideology provided the Nazis with one of their key justifications for sterilizing the “unfit” and killing the handicapped.”.

I reply: I already explained that from before. The Bible “provided” the crusaders with the justification to kill Jews. Abuse doesn’t negate correct use. Of course Darwinian ideology provided the Nazis etc. Dawkins himself said he wouldn’t want to live in a society that was run on Darwinian ideology. Just an example of applying Darwinism to Government.

>They cover their asses by saying “are careful to point out that there is no inevitable connection between Darwinism and what happened in Nazi Germany.” but then do almost a backflip and say nearly the complete opposite.

I reply: You have just conceded to me the lion’s share of the argument. For you it not about what they ACTUALLY said but what YOU WANT THEM to mean. That doesn’t fool anybody. Exegete texts my lad(is that British enough for yuss?) don’t isogete them it’s bad form.

>Which, of course, is utter nonsense. What they’re talking about there is Social Darwinism and Eugenics. Neither of which have anything to do with the Theory of Evolution (or Charles Darwin for that matter).

I reply: It clearly has something to do with Darwin since Darwin postulated the survival of the fittest & some Atheist chuckleheads thought that would be a great way to improve the human race. Just like some Christian Chuckleheads read in their about how the High Priest turned JC over to the Romans to be killed & thought THAT gave them permission to take it out on later day Jews.

Why the double standard?

Find a better example from the DI website & use their ACTUAL words not you summery of what you WANT them to mean. Because son you are NOT going to convince anyone with an IQ above 3.

Oy vey!
Matt, on May 4th, 2008 at 17:31 Said:

There is no double standard at all.

The DI has stated time and again, in that very entry, that they link the Theory of Evolution with what Hitler did. Which is the whole point and where the article goes completely wrong.

They attempt to make that link through misusing a quote of Dawkins in a specific manner, which is the definition of quote mining.

The Theory of Evolution didn’t supply the Nazis with any sort of ideology because the concept already existed, through the ideals supported by such people as Thomas Malthus years before Darwin ever came onto the scene.

So the DI got caught out being wrong and now you seem to be trying to apologise for them in a rather strange manner.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 5th, 2008 at 5:19 Said:

>The DI has stated time and again, in that very entry, that they link the Theory of Evolution with what Hitler did. Which is the whole point and where the article goes completely wrong.

I reply: Repeating yourself without specifically addressing my points is unconvincing. It’s called “Point weak-pound pulpit”.

>They attempt to make that link through misusing a quote of Dawkins in a specific manner, which is the definition of quote mining.

I reply: They CLEARLY don’t misquote Dawkins. Dawkins clearly said Darwinism should not be applied to government or it will lead to fascism. The DI people point that out & point out Dawkin’s inconsistancy in complaining about Ben Stein & DI people pointing to Hitler’s applying Darwin to his particular type of goverment which was Fascism.

>The Theory of Evolution didn’t supply the Nazis with any sort of ideology because the concept already existed, through the ideals supported by such people as Thomas Malthus years before Darwin ever came onto the scene.

I reply: Every standard biography of Hitler tells how he borrowed from(ie. distorted) Darwin to justify his racial beliefs. Just as the Knights of the KKK borrow from(ie. distort) the Bible to justify their racial beliefs. In case you are unaware the concept of Evolution goes back to the Greeks. Darwin applied the concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to nature, and that’s where Hitler believed he was taking his beliefs from.

The link is undeniable, but misuse doesn’t negate proper use. I believe the Bible to be God’s inspired word & I’m not afraid to admit that there’s a “link” between the evil KKK & the Bible. Why are you then so uncomfortable with the link between Darwinism & Hitler? You remind me of the Fundamentalist Protestant who’s uncomfortable with the fact that

people have misused the Bible for evil & wants to downplay it & overreact by saying there’s no true connection. You in a like manner can’t bear to admit that there’s a link between them(no true Scotsman argument). You’d look much better if you just say, “Granted, there’s a link but so what? Misuse doesn’t negate proper use.”

I think the bottom line is that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris & they’re sycophants can dish it out but can’t take it. They will cite all these religious people who’ve committed grievious evil and say “Their religion is to blame!” & then they will come up with the most tortured double-standard arguments why Stalin’s atrocities supposedly had nothing to do with his atheism(that doesn’t even pass the laugh test).

Those guys on South Park are extremely irreligious but they have it right. In a futuristic society where everyone is atheist they’d still manage to make divisions & commit horrible atrocities against each other. The “religion poisons everything” canard is simplistic twaddle.

>So the DI got caught out being wrong and now you seem to be trying to apologise for them in a rather strange manner.

I don’t apologize for them at all. I think what they’re doing is great. Here you go again reading into your opponents what you want them to mean.

This is going back & forth, back & forth. We will never agree. So we can agree to disagree or, as I might see it, if you choose to be wrong that’s your right. But don’t think you’ll be able to do it without getting called on it.
Matt, on May 5th, 2008 at 9:19 Said:

I reply: Repeating yourself without specifically addressing my points is unconvincing. It’s called “Point weak-pound pulpit”.

I’ve already given examples of where they support this claim, namely the Expelled movie. Try again.

I reply: They CLEARLY don’t misquote Dawkins. Dawkins clearly said Darwinism should not be applied to government or it will lead to fascism. The DI people point that out & point out Dawkin’s inconsistancy in complaining about Ben Stein & DI people pointing to Hitler’s applying Darwin to his particular type of goverment which was Fascism.

You’re not getting the point at all, are you? The point is that the Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with Social Darwinism or Eugenics. As Panda’s Thumb points out, it’s like trying to apply Quantum Theory to society and blaming it for anarchy.

As that nice little Panda’s Thumb writeup also states, and seems to understand the quote better than you apparently do.. “I hope that those better versed in logic than our Intelligent Design defender, understands the difference between ”A Darwinian society would be a fascist state” and ”Darwinism leads to Fascism”?”

And yes, at this point I must point out that I got some names mixed up in an earlier reply. John West is the writer from the DI, the Panda’s Thumb article was written by PvM.

I reply: Every standard biography of Hitler tells how he borrowed from(ie. distorted) Darwin to justify his racial beliefs.

Wow. That proves … absolutely nothing in the context of this little conversation of ours. And is also quite false, just like those rather silly people who try to label Hitler as an Atheist and use that to blame for his little temper tantrum across Europe. You also disprove your own point; if someone takes, distorts and uses something for ill ends then that original ideology isn’t to blame since, as you point out, it’d be like blaming Christianity for the KKK. Which is just plain silly.

then they will come up with the most tortured double-standard arguments why Stalin’s atrocities supposedly had nothing to do with his atheism(that doesn’t even pass the laugh test).

Your lack of logical thinking is betrayed in the above statement. Only someone who doesn’t understand the basics of what Stalin did would try to claim such … or understand Atheism for that matter. His actions were never controlled or guided by Atheism, indeed they simply could not be since Atheism is simply ‘there is no supernatural stuff/gods’. Instead, he was just a power hungry mad man … it’s as simple as that. And power hungry mad men come in all shapes and sizes, from Atheist to fundamentalist religious.

Those guys on South Park are extremely irreligious but they have it right. In a futuristic society where everyone is atheist they’d still manage to make divisions & commit horrible atrocities against each other. The “religion poisons everything” canard is simplistic twaddle.

That’s some nice credible evidence you’re using there. I guess I’ll have to counter by using Bugs Bunny or some such. And no one has ever claimed that all Atheists are morally perfect or incapable of doing bad things, don’t be absurd. That being said, the ideology of Atheist is never (to my knowledge) led directly to people committing bad things. Why? Because there is no directive as a part of Atheism to do so … there is no ’spread the word’ or ‘conquer the heathens’ or anything along those lines.

But, as mentioned, that does not mean that Atheists can not do bad things. Not at all. But trying to blame Atheism itself for it is rather silly since all men, religious or not, do bad things. Sometimes religion is to blame for it, sometimes it’s politics, sometimes it is greed. But never had it been Atheism.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 5th, 2008 at 13:31 Said:

>I’ve already given examples of where they support this claim, namely the Expelled movie. Try again.

I reply: I was defending DI specifically against your charge of quote mining & I already said I haven’t seen the movie yet. So this is a classic red herring.(BTW did you really see it? Or are you just relying on the claim of those who have?)

>You’re not getting the point at all, are you? The point is that the Theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with Social Darwinism or Eugenics. As Panda’s Thumb points out, it’s like trying to apply Quantum Theory to society and blaming it for anarchy.

I reply: I get the point your not getting mine. Well we know Hitler tried to apply Darwin to politics & human eugentics. Nobody has EVER tried to apply Quantum Theory in these areas that I know of. So this is another Red Herring & false analogy.

>As that nice little Panda’s Thumb writeup also states, and seems to understand the quote better than you apparently do.. “I hope that those better versed in logic than our Intelligent Design defender, understands the difference between ”A Darwinian society would be a fascist state” and ”Darwinism leads to Fascism”?”

I reply: Well the Quote I provided follwing YOUR link to the DI article showed quite clearly the DI people understood it the SAME WAY.

>And yes, at this point I must point out that I got some names mixed up in an earlier reply. John West is the writer from the DI, the Panda’s Thumb article was written by PvM.

I reply: Excellent! You admited to a mistake. There is hope for you. I’m proud of you! But then again we Dr. Who fans are willing to own up to our mistakes just like the Doctor. (I wonder if we are ever going to see Romana in the New Series? That would rule!).

>Wow. That proves … absolutely nothing in the context of this little conversation of ours. And is also quite false, just like those rather silly people who try to label Hitler as an Atheist and use that to blame for his little temper tantrum across Europe. You also disprove your own point; if someone takes, distorts and uses something for ill ends then that original ideology isn’t to blame since, as you point out, it’d be like blaming Christianity for the KKK. Which is just plain silly.

I reply: ????????????????????

>Your lack of logical thinking is betrayed in the above statement. Only someone who doesn’t understand the basics of what Stalin did would try to claim such … or understand Atheism for that matter. His actions were never controlled or guided by Atheism, indeed they simply could not be since Atheism is simply ‘there is no supernatural stuff/gods’. Instead, he was just a power hungry mad man … it’s as simple as that. And power hungry mad men come in all shapes and sizes, from Atheist to fundamentalist religious.

I reply: So your a Fundamentalist Atheist then(Dawkins, Hitchens Harris)? Not a rational one (Russell, Paglia, Sagan). Stalin believed Religion was evil & he didn’t believe any God/Goddess/gods was/were watching him, judging him, so he following his belief Religion was evil & did whatever he could to wipe it out. I know some Ukrianian Catholic who have some rather definative views on that. When he wasn’t starving him he was burning the Churches. At least the Czar let people pray while he was oppressing them.
Camille Paglia(Atheist Professor) said when you cast down the gods new ones must take their place. In this case it was Communism which was the new god which unlike Fascism mandates coherced dogmatic Atheism.

>That’s some nice credible evidence you’re using there. I guess I’ll have to counter by using Bugs Bunny or some such. And no one has ever claimed that all Atheists are morally perfect or incapable of doing bad things, don’t be absurd. That being said, the ideology of Atheist is never (to my knowledge) led directly to people committing bad things. Why? Because there is no directive as a part of Atheism to do so … there is no ’spread the word’ or ‘conquer the heathens’ or anything along those lines.

I reply: Well the South Park guys are NOT fans of the Pope or Jerry Falwell. But they have enough common sense to see the obvious. I appreaciate your turn of this phrase “the ideology of Atheist is never (to my knowledge) led directly to..etc” Socrates was the wisest man in Greece because of three words “I don’t Know”. Your getting better well done. So you don’t know? (I know) So you admit the possiblity? There is hope for you guy.

>But, as mentioned, that does not mean that Atheists can not do bad things. Not at all. But trying to blame Atheism itself for it is rather silly since all men, religious or not, do bad things. Sometimes religion is to blame for it, sometimes it’s politics, sometimes it is greed. But never had it been Atheism.

I reply: You contradict yourself & you are using the “No True Scotman” fallacy when you claim Atheism is never to blame for Atheists doing bad things. You can say neither religion as an Ideal or Atheism as an Ideal is to blame or you could say Both are to blame when they are less then ideal. But your claim is a clear double standard & argument from special pleading.
Matt, on May 5th, 2008 at 14:17 Said:

I was defending DI specifically against your charge of quote mining

Which you haven’t successfully done yet. They used it out of context to try to link it to something which the quote doesn’t speak of.

I get the point your not getting mine. Well we know Hitler tried to apply Darwin to politics & human eugentics.

We know nothing of the kind. He tried to apply eugenics and social Darwinism to certain types of the populace which have NOTHING to do with the Theory of Evolution. The concepts of both of those philosophies predate Darwin by quite some years.

So your a Fundamentalist Atheist then(Dawkins, Hitchens Harris)?

Not at all. I just know what is the cause of certain actions and what isn’t.

And no, Atheism can not be blamed for any wrong doing that I know of. It doesn’t instruct people to wipe out other people, oppose religions or conquer nations. It is simply a non-belief in the supernatural/deities. Nothing more at all. Often it goes hand in hand with a firm belief in the advancement that science offers but even that is not a given.
Now people might read too much into Atheism or misunderstand it complete, like you seem to be doing, and do odd things in the name of this perverted concept of it … much like the KKK does with Christianity but that does mean Atheism is to blame (just like Christianity isn’t to blame for the KKK).

Stalin was simply a power hungry despot and it did not matter if he was an Atheist or Deist, he would have done what he did regardless; simply in a vain bid to sate his thirst for power. There is a vast difference in performing in act in the name of something and doing an act and you just happen to be a member of some demographic.

You also seem to be trying to tie morality to deities somehow, which is really a rather large mistake.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 5th, 2008 at 17:04 Said:

>And no, Atheism can not be blamed for any wrong doing that I know of.

I reply: Atheism has multiple definitions. Classical Atheism-denying any particular gods. I’m a Classic Atheist since I do not believe Zeus exists, YHWH OTOH….
Dogmatic Atheists-People who say there is/are no God(s). Literal- A-Theist -anyone who is not a Theist. Thus Deists & Pantheists can be Atheists. Some forms of Buddhism are atheistic since they deny the gods really exist & they deny an ultimate god. Then of course there are Materialists, Marxists, Communists, Existentialists etc. Your weird belief Atheism is just one thing makes about as much sense as claiming Religion is just one thing. It’s like saying the Hindu, Taoist, Mormon & Muslim are the same thing. Silly & anti-intellectual.

“Anti-religious sneers are a hallmark of perpetual adolescents”-Camille Paglia(Atheist)

Think young man. You are being a fundamentalist.

>It doesn’t instruct people to wipe out other people, oppose religions or conquer nations.

I reply: Tell that to the Communists whose ideology literally says NOTHING is immoral if it furthers their cause of world wide worker revolution, dictatorship of the prolateriat, the supression of the Opium of the People(religion) which will lead to Socialism then Communism. We all saw how that turned out. I have elderly Ukrianian fCatholic friends who bare the scars. Anyway Atheism as a concept doesn’t harm anyone individuals do that. But logically that also applies to Theism as a concept as well. Of course if you norrow down Theism to a particular philosophy or religion some religions may do that. OTOH Communists are Atheists. Atheism is a necessary part of Communism and dialetical materialism. Take out the Atheism it’s like having Christianity without Christ. What makes Fundamentalist Atheists so silly is they believe your weird illogical double standard.

>It is simply a non-belief in the supernatural/deities. Nothing more at all.

I reply: Only someone ignornant of history could make so foolish a statement. This type of fuzzy thinking is right up there with Fiat Creationists who claim the 2nd Law of Theromodynamics deny evolution. Silly & anti-intellectual.

If you where logical you would say neither the concepts of Atheism or Theism don’t cause wars, wipe out people etc…but you seem (I hope I’m wrong) to want to hold fast to your fundamentalism.

>Often it goes hand in hand with a firm belief in the advancement that science offers but even that is not a given.

I reply: Theists, Deists, Pantheists, Monists etc all can be scientific. It’s not unremarkable.

>Now people might read too much into Atheism or misunderstand it complete, like you seem to be doing, and do odd things in the name of this perverted concept of it … much like the KKK does with Christianity but that does mean Atheism is to blame (just like Christianity isn’t to blame for the KKK).

I reply: You just contradicted what you said earlier. you said QUOTE”Sometimes religion is to blame for it, sometimes it’s politics, sometimes it is greed. But never had it been Atheism.” So which do you really believe? You said both these things & logically THEY CAN’T both be correct?

>Stalin was simply a power hungry despot and it did not matter if he was an Atheist or Deist, he would have done what he did regardless;simply in a vain bid to sate his thirst for power.

I reply: He was an ex-Christian turned Communist(of which Atheism is as important as Christ is to Christianity). According to Communism NOTHING is immoral if it promotes world worker revolution & of course Religion is the opium of the People that must be supressed violently if needed.

>There is a vast difference in performing in act in the name of something and doing an act and you just happen to be a member of some demographic.

I reply: True BUT you inconsistantly apply that to Atheism only & not to Theism & Religion which is STILL the logical fallacy of special pleading.

>You also seem to be trying to tie morality to deities somehow, which is really a rather large mistake.

I blame Dawkins for the crop of anti-Intellectual atheists that plods about these days. The smarter ones I dealt with when I was younger where so much better to talk too & would dismiss the likes of Dawkins like I dismiss Jimmy Swaggart. BTW Dostoyevsky says: “If God doesn’t exist, everything is permitted.”? In the practical sense that is untrue since if I shoot someone the police will still haul me away HOWEVER if there is no God clearly there is no reason to be moral unless it is in one’s self interest. The moment morality & self interest are at opposites I see no reason why in a godless universe morality should out unless it’s at my expense. Every man a Wolf to his fellow & what not.
Matt, on May 5th, 2008 at 18:07 Said:

Atheism has multiple definitions. Classical Atheism-denying any particular gods. I’m a Classic Atheist since I do not believe Zeus exists, YHWH OTOH….
Dogmatic Atheists-People who say there is/are no God(s).

It seems that your definition of what Atheism is happens to be the weird one. Atheism is simply the non-belief in any gods or the like, no more and no less.

Think young man. You are being a fundamentalist.

‘Young’. Interesting. You not only try to presume my age, you also try to presume my stance on various issues without actually knowing them.
How interesting.

Tell that to the Communists whose ideology literally says NOTHING is immoral if it furthers their cause of world wide worker revolution

Wow. That’s an impressive logical leap you’re taking there. So not only does ‘Darwinism’ lead to Nazism but Atheism leads to communism. How utterly interesting.
Is Atheism a necessary part of communism? Not all, it is entirely possible to have theistic belief as part of a communistic based society. Is communism necessary or a result of Atheism? Not at all and the notion of it is absurd and entirely without basis or foundation.

If you where logical you would say neither the concepts of Atheism or Theism don’t cause wars, wipe out people etc…but you seem (I hope I’m wrong) to want to hold fast to your fundamentalism.

Since you seem to be in favour of using quotes…
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg, New York Times, April 20, 1999

I have read and seen accounts of plenty of people doing great things in the name of Religion, just like I have heard of people doing horrendous things in the name of religion. I have yet to hear of an account of anyone slaughtering people and yelling out “For Atheism! For something that doesn’t exist!”

>Often it goes hand in hand with a firm belief in the advancement that science offers but even that is not a given.

I reply: Theists, Deists, Pantheists, Monists etc all can be scientific. It’s not unremarkable.

You just contradicted what you said earlier. you said QUOTE”Sometimes religion is to blame for it, sometimes it’s politics, sometimes it is greed. But never had it been Atheism.” So which do you really believe? You said both these things & logically THEY CAN’T both be correct?

You fail to comprehend and link it to the previous paragraph completely. I have not stated contradictory things at all and I stand by my claim that Atheism has not been the driving force behind any atrocity known to man. There is no active component to Atheism, there is no great cause for people to rally behind, there is no ‘Truth’ to spread to the heretical masses. It is simply unbelief, which is a simple fact that constantly seems to elude you.

Again with Stalin and again you’re missing what motivated him completely. The man was a nutter and he was motivated solely by his meglomania.

True BUT you inconsistantly apply that to Atheism only & not to Theism & Religion which is STILL the logical fallacy of special pleading.

Not at all. If you take various atrocities such as the Spanish Inquisition (for the sake of example) then it was done in the name of religion and really nothing else. A hell of a lot of bad things have been done expressly in the name of religion but pretty much none have been done in the name of Atheism. And that’s the whole point you’re missing; it doesn’t matter if someone is part of some demographic or another, it matters what they do those acts in the name of.

HOWEVER if there is no God clearly there is no reason to be moral unless it is in one’s self interest.

Then you have clearly not done any actual research into morality and ethics and it also says a lot about your own sense of morality. That without the threat of punishment (be it god or the police) then you’d feel absolutely free to be a complete and utter sadistic bastard.
Which pretty much makes you immoral when you think about it.

I think you need to try just a tad harder.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 6th, 2008 at 2:45 Said:

>It seems that your definition of what Atheism is happens to be the weird one. Atheism is simply the non-belief in any gods or the like, no more and no less.

I reply: I learned this from textbooks & University Libraries. Your answer to me is simply to not answer or interact logically & to dismiss what I said. I get that from Religious Fundamentalists clearly Atheist Fundamentalist are no better.

>‘Young’. Interesting. You not only try to presume my age, you also try to presume my stance on various issues without actually knowing them. How interesting.

I reply: Tell me your age then. I don’t know for sure. But in my experience an older man would take acception at being called “young” & would straight up tell me his age. You haven’t so I conclude you are young. I could be wrong.

>Wow. That’s an impressive logical leap you’re taking there. So not only does ‘Darwinism’ lead to Nazism but Atheism leads to communism. How utterly interesting. Is Atheism a necessary part of communism? Not all, it is entirely possible to have theistic belief as part of a communistic based society. Is communism necessary or a result of Atheism? Not at all and the notion of it is absurd and entirely without
basis or foundation.

I reply: Karl Marx the founder of Communism would STRONGLY disagree with you. Just like the Pope would srongly disagree with me if I said you could be an orthdox Catholic & deny the Deity of Christ. Your anti-intellectualism & fundamentalist are both sad & entertaining.

>Since you seem to be in favour of using quotes…
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg, New York Times, April 20, 1999

I reply: This is mere assersion. I’m sure you believe this just as some people believe the world is only 6,000 yrs old. But defending it logically is another matter. You have not answer me logically you merely contradicted me.

>I have read and seen accounts of plenty of people doing great things in the name of Religion, just like I have heard of people doing horredous things in the name of religion. I have yet to hear of an account of anyone slaughtering people and yelling out “For Atheism! For something that doesn’t exist!”

I reply: Then you are deaf. I know many Ukrianians who herd the Commissars in the former USSR shout “down with religion” “down with the Opum of the people” that is the same is “For Atheism”. Besides you are making the logical mistake of
asserting a universal negative. How do you know no Communist ever shouted “For Atheist against the Opium of the People”? How do you prove a universal negative? It’s not possible. That is logic 101.

>You fail to comprehend and link it to the previous paragraph completely. I have not stated contradictory things at all and I stand by my claim that Atheism has not been the driving force behind any atrocity known to man. There is no active component to Atheism, there is no great cause for people to rally behind, there is no ‘Truth’ to spread to the heretical masses. It is
simply unbelief, which is a simple fact that constantly seems to elude you.

I reply: Now repeating youself again. You refused to interact with what I wrote logically you simply dismissed it. It’s like showing a Fiat Creationist an argument against the youngness of the Earth & having is response merely be “But the Bible
says it was only six days so you must be wrong”. Amazing!

>Again with Stalin and again you’re missing what motivated him completely. The man was a nutter and he was motivated solely by his meglomania.

I reply: A simplisit analysis that is factually challenged.

>>True BUT you inconsistantly apply that to Atheism only & not to Theism & Religion which is STILL the logical fallacy of special pleading.

>Not at all. If you take various atrocities such as the Spanish Inquisition (for the sake of example) then it was done in the name of religion and really nothing else. A hell of a lot of bad things have been done expressly in the name of religion but pretty much none have been done in the name of Atheism. And that’s the whole point you’re missing; it doesn’t matter if someone is part of some demographic or another, it matters what they do those acts in the name of.

I reply: Actually the Spanish Inquisition was done for political purposes since Jews who converted to Catholicism in Spain STILL politically supported the Moors over the Spainish Crown but why destroy your monosalablic simple minded argument with a
factual appeal to objectve history? Anyway you jump to specific religions instead of regarding Theism in general but OBJECT when I do it. When I jump from general philosophical Atheism to specific Atheistic ideologys. You are inconsistant.

>>HOWEVER if there is no God clearly there is no reason to be moral unless it is in one’s self interest.

>Then you have clearly not done any actual research into morality and ethics and it also says a lot about your own sense of morality. That without the threat of punishment (be it god or the police) then you’d feel absolutely free to be a complete and utter sadistic bastard. Which pretty much makes you immoral when you think about it.

I reply: Of course I’m immoral(i.e. a Sinner) All devout Christians believe that it is not a new descovery. But again you are dodging the issue. I’ve done a lot of research & I have concluded if God doesn’t exist there is no reason to be moral unless it is in one’s self interest. Of course if there is no God there is clearly no OBJECTIVE morallity just the morally we
create. Nietzsche understood that which shows the heart of your problem. You don’t study the classical Atheists you simply follow the faddish upper class twitery of the New Atheists. It’s like following Jimmy Swaggart over Augustine. Sad really.
Matt, on May 6th, 2008 at 7:52 Said:

I learned this from textbooks & University Libraries.

Such a pity you didn’t consult your nearest dictionary, then.
a·the·ism
Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

And yes, that is it.

Your answer to me is simply to not answer or interact logically & to dismiss what I said. I get that from Religious Fundamentalists clearly Atheist Fundamentalist are no better.

Rather a good thing that your rather odd opinion does not count as evidence then.

Tell me your age then.

Yes, because I love spreading my personal details about the internet. No. That being said, I would not be counted by many as ‘young’.

Karl Marx the founder of Communism would STRONGLY disagree with you. Just like the Pope would srongly disagree with me if I said you could be an orthdox Catholic & deny the Deity of Christ. Your anti-intellectualism & fundamentalist are both sad & entertaining.

Wow. Not a single rebuttal in there. What I said stands, I guess.

This is mere assersion.

‘Assertion’.
Which is all the quotes you’ve been using do.

I’m sure you believe this just as some people believe the world is only 6,000 yrs old. But defending it logically is another matter. You have not answer me logically you merely contradicted me.

Maybe if you offered something substantial to be refuted logically, it would help somewhat. I can only work with what I’m given and so far you’ve given me nothing but your own rather odd personal opinion.

Then you are deaf. I know many Ukrianians who herd the Commissars in the former USSR shout “down with religion” “down with the Opum of the people” that is the same is “For Atheism”.

Again, no it is not. They were doing what they were doing for the sake of communism, not Atheism and there is a great difference between the two. Trying to blame Atheism for this incident is like trying to blame a car battery when an automatic transmission breaks down in a car.

Besides you are making the logical mistake of
asserting a universal negative. How do you know no Communist ever shouted “For Atheist against the Opium of the People”? How do you prove a universal negative? It’s not possible. That is logic 101.

Because none, to the best of my knowledge, has ever been recorded and verified. Feel free to prove me wrong, however.

Now repeating youself again.

Kettle. Pot. Black.

You refused to interact with what I wrote logically you simply dismissed it.

You made the same argument, I gave the same refutation.
It is the way it works.

A simplisit analysis that is factually challenged.

‘Simplistic’. And I suggest you go and read up on Stalin some more then.

Actually the Spanish Inquisition was done for political purposes

From Wikipedia (for the sake of quick referencing):
“The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms”

Damn, sounds like a religious reason to me.

When I jump from general philosophical Atheism to specific Atheistic ideologys. You are inconsistant.

Not at all, since you’re trying to compare apples and oranges when you do it. You need to learn to differentiate between circumstances and stop trying to lump different events and motivations in the one basket.

Of course I’m immoral(i.e. a Sinner) All devout Christians believe that it is not a new descovery. But again you are dodging the issue. I’ve done a lot of research & I have concluded if God doesn’t exist there is no reason to be moral unless it is in one’s self interest.

Then, as I said, you need to do more research. Try looking into concepts such as the Social Contract or the evolutionary nature of Morality.

You don’t study the classical Atheists you simply follow the faddish upper class twitery of the New Atheists.

Damn. You must be some sort of soothsayer or prophet. Now you even know when I became an Atheist.
Which, for the record, was long before I ever heard of Dawkins. I don’t even like Sam Harris’ work, for that matter.

It’s like following Jimmy Swaggart over Augustine. Sad really.

And you’re trying to pass yourself off as some sort of learned intellectual when, in fact, your ignorance and steadfastness in views are blatant and obvious for anyone to see.

You seem to pass judgement on those you encounter and automatically label those who disagree with your weak arguments as being fundamentalist even when you don’t know a thing about that person.

For the record, I am not a fundamentalist. I am always prepared to change my mind on various subjects but people have to show evidence first. Indeed, your own stance on issues throughout this entry have actually indicated that it is you who are a fundamentalist, dismissing arguments through false application of logical fallacies and presenting really rather weak claims.

As earlier stated, you need to try a lot harder.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 6th, 2008 at 9:09 Said:

>Such a pity you didn’t consult your nearest dictionary…etc.
I reply: Fundamentalist Christians seem to believe everything can be settled with a pithy quotation from the Bible. It seems Fundamentalist Atheists will employ the same empty method. I find it astounding simplistic.

The Wikipedia gives a more full & therefore technically correct definition QUOTE” Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.
Well THAT is more accurate. Don’t believe me? My advice consult ANY Encyclopedia of your choice.

>>Your answer to me is simply to not answer or interact logically & to dismiss what I said. I get that from Religious Fundamentalists clearly Atheist Fundamentalist are no better.

>Rather a good thing that your rather odd opinion does not count as evidence then.

I reply: perhaps. Perhaps not.

>>Tell me your age then.

>Yes, because I love spreading my personal details about the internet. No. That being said, I would not be counted by many as ‘young’.

I reply: As you wish but I fail to see how mere age is the same as address, phone #, full name, Social Security #, Drivers license #, Job or Bank #. None of which I asked about, wish to know about or expect to be told. But you SOUND much younger then me so I am inclined to treat you as such.

>>Karl Marx the founder of Communism would STRONGLY disagree with you. Just like the Pope would srongly disagree with me if I said you could be an orthdox Catholic & deny the Deity of Christ. Your anti-intellectualism & fundamentalist are both sad & entertaining.
>Wow. Not a single rebuttal in there. What I said stands, I guess.

I repy: So you deny Karl Mark taught Atheism & Dialectical materialism as a necessary feature of his ideology. Curious. It’s like claiming Muhammed didn’t teach monotheism was a necessary feature of Islam.

>Maybe if you offered something substantial to be refuted logically, it would help somewhat. I can only work with what I’m given and so far you’ve given me nothing but your own rather odd personal opinion.

I reply: I have but you don’t seem to want to cooperate.

>Again, no it is not. They were doing what they were doing for the sake of communism, not Atheism and there is a great difference between the two. Trying to blame Atheism for this incident is like trying to blame a car battery when an automatic transmission breaks down in a car.

I reply: That goes for blaming Theism & religion. Again your argument by special pleading & double standard.

>Because none, to the best of my knowledge, has ever been recorded and verified. Feel free to prove me wrong, however.

I reply: Would you believe me if I did? You’re the one who seems to think the Dictionary Alone(Sola Dictionario) is sufficient to define Atheism. Your pattern to date would suggest your response twould be “Well that was just one man,” “You heard that from a Theist.” “The statement is a forgery since no Atheist would say that.” “The person was really religious but only thought he was an Atheist” “The person was not the leader of the Party just a misguided individual who doesn’t speak for Atheism”. It seems you are channeling the sophistries of Sam Harris.

Interesting but intellectually unmoving.

>Kettle. Pot. Black.

I reply: Really? I didn’t know that. Thank you for informing me.

>You made the same argument, I gave the same refutation.
It is the way it works.

I reply: So far with you it’s been only one way traffic.

> ‘Simplistic’. And I suggest you go and read up on Stalin some more then.

I reply: You get points for spelling but that’s it.

>From Wikipedia (for the sake of quick referencing):
“The Spanish Inquisition was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms”
Damn, sounds like a religious reason to me.

The same article says Quote” Motives for instituting the Spanish Inquisition

Historians differ about Ferdinand and Isabella’s motives for introducing the Inquisition into Spain. A number of possible reasons have been suggested:
1. To establish political and religious homogeneity. The Inquisition allowed the monarchy to intervene actively in religious affairs, without the interference of the Pope. At the same time, Ferdinand and Isabella’s objective was the creation of state machinery that allowed them to maximize their control, thus one priority was to achieve religious unity to promote more centralized political authority.
2. To weaken local political opposition to the Catholic monarchs. Strengthening centralized political authority also entailed weakening local political opposition. Resistance to the installation of the Inquisition in the Kingdom of Aragon, for example, was often couched in terms of local legal privileges (fueros).
3. Out of fear. The Encyclopaedia Judaica of 1991 (Vol XI, p.485) states that, “It remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their correligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammedans to conquer Spain.” Whether real or imagined there was a great fear among 15th Century Spaniards that they had a Fifth column living among them.[6]
4. To do away with the powerful converso minority. Many members of influential families such as the Santa Fés, the Santangels, the Caballerias and the Sanchezes, were prosecuted in the Kingdom of Aragon. However the King of Aragon, Ferdinand, continued to employ many conversos in his administration.
5. Profit. The property of people found guilty by the Inquisition was confiscated. Sixtus IV openly accused the monarchs of this sin. End Quote
.
Sounds political to me. Other historians recognize this.

>Not at all, since you’re trying to compare apples and oranges when you do it. You need to learn to differentiate between circumstances and stop trying to lump different events and motivations in the one basket.

I reply: Physician heal thyself.

>Then, as I said, you need to do more research. Try looking into concepts such as the Social Contract or the evolutionary nature of Morality.

I reply: Why should I? Since the issue is not where morality came (it evolved? God did it? etc) from but if there is really no God why should I be moral if it’s not in my best interest?

>Damn. You must be some sort of soothsayer or prophet. Now you even know when I became an Atheist.

I reply: I concede that point.

>Which, for the record, was long before I ever heard of Dawkins. I don’t even like Sam Harris’ work, for that matter.

I reply: Well good for you on Sam Harris but Dawkins is ONLY good for explaining evolution. He is rubbish when it comes to the philosophy of religion & Atheism. He can’t get beyond his implicit logical positivism & he can’t tell the practical difference between believing in YHWH, Zeus or Santa Claus which makes his efforts as a missionary for non-belief somewhat in vain. He is doomed to preach to the choir.

>And you’re trying to pass yourself off as some sort of learned intellectual when, in fact, your ignorance and steadfastness in views are blatant and obvious for anyone to see.

I reply: Now who is the of soothsayer or prophet?

>You seem to pass judgement on those you encounter and automatically label those who disagree with your weak arguments as being fundamentalist even when you don’t know a thing about that person.

I reply: I’m actually trying to goad you into putting more effort into you responses. If you aren’t interested in discussing these things simply say so. I won’t conclude you are “afraid too” (& if I did why should you give a shit what I think? I wouldn’t).

Maybe THAT best explains your poor proformance? Maybe you are not a Fundamentalist.

>For the record, I am not a fundamentalist. I am always prepared to change my mind on various subjects but people have to show evidence first. Indeed, your own stance on issues throughout this entry have actually indicated that it is you who are a fundamentalist, dismissing arguments through false application of logical fallacies and presenting really rather weak claims.

I reply: I disagree. But you are entiled to your own oppinion on me. I have already formed one on you. You are a Atheist Fundamentalist trying to pass himself off as a rational being or Not & you simply don’t really FEEL like arguing seriously with me.

Cheers! Remember me to Gallyfrey!
Matt, on May 6th, 2008 at 16:25 Said:

Fundamentalist Christians seem to believe everything can be settled with a pithy quotation from the Bible. It seems Fundamentalist Atheists will employ the same empty method. I find it astounding simplistic.

That’s interesting since you yourself have been using quotes from various sources which don’t actually prove anything.

The Wikipedia gives a more full & therefore technically correct definition…

All of which is summed up by exactly what I said. A non-belief in gods/supernatural powers. That is all Atheism is.

So you deny Karl Mark taught Atheism & Dialectical materialism as a necessary feature of his ideology. Curious. It’s like claiming Muhammed didn’t teach monotheism was a necessary feature of Islam.

Marx was a proponent of Communism which included Atheistic elements but he didn’t teach Atheism by itself, not by a long shot. You seem to be trying to tie the two together when there really is nowhere a strong a link as you’re trying to make out.

That goes for blaming Theism & religion. Again your argument by special pleading & double standard.

Not at all and this is something you really seem to be struggling with. Just because someone is a member of a particular group/demographic does not make that group responsible for that man’s actions. However, if that man performs those actions in the name of that group and follows the ideologies of that group then the group is to blame. And that is a world of difference between what you’re trying to claim.

Would you believe me if I did? You’re the one who seems to think the Dictionary Alone(Sola Dictionario) is sufficient to define Atheism.

I never said that. I used a dictionary to gain one definition of Atheism and actually point out that Atheism, as understood today, is actually very simple. It is the non-belief in gods/supernatural powers as established earlier.

Your pattern to date would suggest your response twould be “Well that was just one man,” “You heard that from a Theist.” “The statement is a forgery since no Atheist would say that.” (snip)

That’s a wonderfully large strawman you’ve built for yourself there. Pity it doesn’t hold any weight.

Sounds political to me. Other historians recognize this.

Pity points 1 and 2 contain large religious elements. Try again.

Why should I? Since the issue is not where morality came (it evolved? God did it? etc) from but if there is really no God why should I be moral if it’s not in my best interest?

The flaw in your statement there is obvious. Simply if there is no god, as Atheists go with, then where does morality come from? You’re presupposing that god exists and morality stems from him/her/it without even researching alternative mechanisms (some of which I listed). Gee, that sure sounds like fundamentalism to me.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 7th, 2008 at 0:06 Said:

>That’s interesting since you yourself have been using quotes from various sources which don’t actually prove anything.
I reply Your second count of point weak pound pulpit.
>>The Wikipedia gives a more full & therefore technically correct definition…
>All of which is summed up by exactly what I said. A non-belief in gods/supernatural powers. That is all Atheism is.
I reply: I don’t deny that is one of the many definitions. What I have issue with is your fundamentalist claim it’s the only definition. Part of that definition is Atheism rejects theism. Which is what a Deist & Pantheist (just to cite two examples) does.
So you deny Karl Mark taught Atheism & Dialectical materialism as a necessary feature of his ideology. Curious. It’s like claiming Muhammed didn’t teach monotheism was a necessary feature of Islam.
>Marx was a proponent of Communism which included Atheistic elements but he didn’t teach Atheism by itself, not by a long shot. You seem to be trying to tie the two together when there really is nowhere a strong a link as you’re trying to make out.
I reply: This is like saying Muhammed taught Islam which included monotheistic elements but didn’t teach monotheism by itself by a long shot. Your lack of logic is astounding. It’s the MAIN element. Lenin said Atheism is a material & inseparable part of Marxism. This is what the Marxists believe. This is what Stalin believed. If you doubt me go hang out with some die in the wood Marxists & float your weird idea that Atheism & materialism are not central to it. It will go over as well as me making the same ridiculous claim about Islam & Monotheism.
They will laugh at you. Loudly & cruelly, they will laugh.
>Not at all and this is something you really seem to be struggling with. Just because someone is a member of a particular group/demographic does not make that group responsible for that man’s actions.
I reply: Your flaw is you ONLY apply that to Theism & Theistic groups & not to Atheism & Atheistic groups.
>However, if that man performs those actions in the name of that group and follows the ideologies of that group then the group is to blame. And that is a world of difference between what you’re trying to claim.

I reply: “The Program of the Communist International also states Communists fight against religion(I interject; Why because they are Buddists?)….Remember the struggle against religion is the struggle for Socialism.”. - Emilian Yarolavsky editor of PRAVDA & Chief of the Union of the Militant Godless.
Notice that last bit. One of the founding members of the Union of the Militant Godless in the old USSR was a wage named Joseph Stalin. What you think Stalin killing all those religious people was an coincidence? He was just crazy. His hatred of religion & Militant Atheism had NOTHING to do with it? They where not called Militant Godless because they advocated Buddhism. What was that you said about no Atheist killed religious people shouting “In the name of Atheism I kill you all of you”? The Union promoted Atheism through out the USSR. Ya think they did it without persecution? They where fair & balanced like FOXNEWS or the BBC. Of course! Think again.
Well that claim has now just been destroyed. I would Luv to see what type of weird sophistry you employ to get out of this one.
For the source go read Time Magazine Feb 17, 1936.
I also suggest you look up the “State Atheism” on the Wikipedia(not the most religion friendly conservative source on the net which makes it excellent to prove my poin). If Atheism ONLY leads to benign behavior & can’t be tied to persecution or oppression in anyway according to your thinking up till now please explain WHY every Atheist State to date has been a Totalitarian Regime?
>I never said that. I used a dictionary to gain one definition of Atheism and actually point out that Atheism, as understood today, is actually very simple. It is the non-belief in gods/supernatural powers as established earlier.
I reply: Then why did you mock the other definitions I gave? They are scholarly valid since I got them from scholarly sources. I am older than you & maybe a bit more well read. You have to ditch this Fundamentalist mentality of yours & THINK. You are not doing that. I don’t what you believe clearly you are NOT doing that.
>That’s a wonderfully large strawman you’ve built for yourself there. Pity it doesn’t hold any weight.
I reply: We shall see in light of the evidence I cited. You don’t argue sir you dismiss & shift the burden of proof but you don’t argue much less argue logically.

>>Sounds political to me. Other historians recognize this.
>Pity points 1 and 2 contain large religious elements. Try again.
I reply: Yes they do for a POLITICAL END & from a political motivation.
Hey you’re the one who quote mined it not me. Try reading it sometime.
>>Why should I? Since the issue is not where morality came (it evolved? God did it? etc) from but if there is really no God why should I be moral if it’s not in my best interest?
>?The flaw in your statement there is obvious. Simply if there is no god, as Atheists go with, then where does morality come from? You’re presupposing that god exists and morality stems from him/her/it without even researching alternative mechanisms (some of which I listed). Gee, that sure sounds like fundamentalism to me.
I reply: No I am assuming for the sake of Argument God doesn’t exist. God doesn’t exist so why be moral if it’s not in my self interest. You are trying to deflect & shift the burden of proof. A tactic the Protestant Fundamentalist use on me all the time (“Prove Mary’s Assumption is in the Bible. No you show me where the Bible says all doctrine must be found in the Bible). You come off as desperate as them when cornered.
Where morality comes from in a godless universe doesn’t matter. It could be a learned social contract or an evolved behavior mechanism. Who cares? That doesn’t answer the question in a godless world WHY should I be moral if it’s not in my self interest? Atheist philosopher Fredrick Nitchie had little trouble saying you don’t have to conform to any moral system that is against your self interest or desires. Why are you having such trouble?
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 7th, 2008 at 1:29 Said:

edit:I reply: Your flaw is you ONLY apply that to Theism & Theistic groups & not to Atheism & Atheistic groups.

Should be the other way around.
Matt, on May 7th, 2008 at 8:50 Said:

I reply Your second count of point weak pound pulpit.

Heh. You’re funny.
So it’s fine if you do it but suddenly you cry foul if anyone else uses the same exact tactic? Heh.

I don’t deny that is one of the many definitions. What I have issue with is your fundamentalist claim it’s the only definition. Part of that definition is Atheism rejects theism.

That depends on a given value of ‘reject’. I’ve never seen or heard of anyone actively hunting down religious followers or organisations in the name of Atheism. Meglomania and Communism, yes. Atheism, no.

I reply: Your flaw is you ONLY apply that to Theism & Theistic groups & not to Atheism & Atheistic groups.

Yet again, you are not getting the point at all. You really do need to read things a lot more closely.
It is one thing to be a member of a demographic and commit a bad act, it doesn’t mean that demographic is responsible for that act. But if you do that act in the name of that demographic and follow the ideology of that group then the group is to blame. By your apparent logic, you could blame Richard Gere’s offensive kissing (offensive to some, not me personally) at an award ceremony because he is a Buddhist. Absurd.

“The Program of the Communist International also states Communists fight against religion

And that has what exactly to do with Atheism? Atheism has nothing to do with fighting against religion, it is simply a nonbelief in deities and supernatural higher powers.
You’re quickly going down that silly road which leads to KKK= Christianity country, which is once again absurd.

please explain WHY every Atheist State to date has been a Totalitarian Regime?

Damn. I guess pretty much the same could be turned right around. Why has pretty much every theocracy either failed miserably or resulted in a backwards nation both technologically, morally and often economically?
In both cases, it applies false circumstances to get the end result.

Yes they do for a POLITICAL END & from a political motivation.

A political end to advance their religious goals. That makes it a religious matter. Try again.

No I am assuming for the sake of Argument God doesn’t exist. God doesn’t exist so why be moral if it’s not in my self interest.

I reply once more; if you even need to ask that question then you simply haven’t done any research into the matter and betray yourself as being ignorant.
Social Contract, Evolutionary origins of Ethics and Morality. Try looking them up or why altruism has been seen in many different species across the planet. By your logic, these organisms (which barely have any concept of ’self’ let alone ‘god’ would be completely immoral and never help any other organism out.

Where morality comes from in a godless universe doesn’t matter. It could be a learned social contract or an evolved behavior mechanism. Who cares? That doesn’t answer the question in a godless world WHY should I be moral if it’s not in my self interest?

Yes, it does. You obviously, once more, haven’t actually bothered to look into the matter. You’re arguing from a position of ignorance on this one by all indications.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 7th, 2008 at 14:12 Said:

[Re-edited. Remove the previous two posts if you like neatness. I also corrected some of my grammar & spelling]

So it’s fine if you do it but suddenly you cry foul if anyone else uses the same exact tactic? Heh.

I reply: My points are not weak. Yours OTOH…..

>That depends on a given value of ‘reject’. I’ve never seen or heard of anyone actively hunting down religious followers or organisations in the name of Atheism. Meglomania and
Communism, yes. Atheism, no.

I reply: Argument from Ignorance fallacy & Cognitive dissonance a classic case. Communists aren’t Atheists in your happy little fundamentalist atheist world. Catholics, Muslims and Jews are Theists but Communists aren’t Atheists? Amazing.

>Yet again, you are not getting the point at all. You really do need to read things a lot more closely. It is one thing to be a member of a demographic and commit a bad act, it doesn’t mean that demographic is responsible for that act. But if you do that act in the name of that demographic and follow the ideology of that group then the group is to blame.

I reply: So having a group called the Union of the Godless that runs around Russia spreading Atheism & persecuting those who won’t conform somehow isn’t doing something in the name of Goddlessness (i.e. Atheism)? Wow! Your like the Atheist version of that guy Jeff on Coupling. Only less coherent & slightly more ridiculous.

>By your apparent logic, you could blame Richard Gere’s offensive kissing (offensive to some, not me personally) at an award ceremony because he is a Buddhist. Absurd.

I reply: Yep this is a Jeff moment since I have no idea what you are talking about. What does “Richard Gere kissing people offensively” have to do with Atheistic genocide in
the former USSR? At this point trying to argue with you rationally is futile and should give way to cruel mockery.

>>“The Program of the Communist International also states Communists fight against religion”

>And that has what exactly to do with Atheism? Atheism has nothing to do with fighting against religion, it is simply a nonbelief in deities and supernatural higher powers.

I reply: Try to process. Therefore Theism has nothing to do with fighting against any non-theistic religion or philosophy, it is simply the belief in a Single God who creates & involves himself in the Universe. Theism manefests itself in different monotheistic religons. Atheism manafests itself in many philosphies- existentialism, materialism, the philosophy of Nietzsche, Christian Atheists reject the idea of a supreme being, but accept Christian teachings and moral beliefs. Known also as Death of God Theology and of course Marxism & COMMUNISM are Atheistic.

Are you this closemind buddy? Next you gonna tell me Atheism has nothing to do with fighting against religion because of the The giggle loop!

>You’re quickly going down that silly road which leads to KKK= Christianity country, which is once again absurd.

I reply: You deny the proposition KKK= Christianity but you believe Theism is at fault when a member of a Theistic group does something wicked to someone else in the name of God?
It’s this the same thing! You don’t see the contradiction?

According to your weird non-logical principle practically applied, Christians are simply people who believe in the Deity of Christ & are Baptized. KKK people believe in the Deity of Christ & are Baptized therefore are Christians(technically this is true). Now if a KKK member in the name of Christ kills a poor black guy. Then Christianity is logically at fault. That is your principle applied. Logically & consistently.

After all according to your weird principle QUOTE”It is one thing to be a member of a demographic and commit a bad act, it doesn’t mean that demographic is responsible for that
act. But if you do that act in the name of that demographic and follow the ideology of that group then the group is to blame.”

KKK members historically have professed the Deity of Christ & are Baptised therefore are Christians. They certainly follow that ideology. It’s THE ONLY good thing about them IMHO. So if your principle is correct. All Christians as a group are responsible for the death of a Black Man killed in the name of Christ by some arsehole in a white sheet.
This would also include all the Black people who belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church since they agree with the KKK on the issue of the Deity of Christ. Also they agree with
all Theists that a Single God created & interactes with the Universe.

This makes sense to you? This logically is what you really believe? I rather prefer the The giggle loop.

Here is a challenge for ya son. Find a Professor of Philosophy & Logic. Make sure he is an Atheist (an Agnostic at worst). Then run this nonsense you believe “Doing something in the name of the group blah blah”by him & see what he thinks.

I predict either derisive laughter or he will shake his head and say “Lad do you have to make the rest of us Brights look foolish in front of the Bible thumpers?”.

>Damn. I guess pretty much the same could be turned right around.

I reply: Of course shift the burden of proof because you have no logical answer for me to your illogical principle.

> Why has pretty much every theocracy either failed miserably or resulted in a backwards nation both technologically, morally and often economically?

I reply: I don’t know. The question is vague. Which theocracies? Monotheistic Theocracies? Pagan Theocracies? Muslim? Jewish? Christian? (At least I had the good sense to pick ONE specific country i.e Russa & One specific Atheist ideology you OTOH could you possibly be even more vague?)

I don’t know. But I’m not gonna make up some weird logically challenged principle to hide my ignorance.

>In both cases, it applies false circumstances to get the end result.

I reply: Much like your whole “But if you do that act in the name of that demographic and follow the ideology of that group then the group is to blame.” quackery up to this
point eh?

>A political end to advance their religious goals. That makes it a religious matter. Try again.

I reply: Read the Article son and stop embarrassing yourself. The Jews supported the Moors against the Spanish Crown. Jewish Converts to Catholicism STILL supported the Moors against the Spanish Crown. It was political. If it was about religion then the Spanards would simply have been content to have a large number of Jews become Christians. But asI seem to recall You Brit guys and THE IRISH where originally blood enemies even before the Reformation when you where all Catholic. It was political then just as it’s political now. Same situation here.

>I reply once more; if you even need to ask that question then you simply haven’t done any research into the matter and betray yourself as being ignorant.
Social Contract, Evolutionary origins of Ethics and Morality. Try looking them up or why altruism has been seen in many different species across the planet. By your logic, these
organisms (which barely have any concept of ’self’ let alone ‘god’ would be completely immoral and never help any other organism out.

I reply: Dodging the issue doesn’t help you. Ok I concede for the sake of argument morality is an evolved and or socially conditioned phenomena. I absolutely concede it for
the sake of argument! Now why should I choose to follow this phenomena that has evolved in the human species & or was conditioned if it at any time it goes against my interest?

>>Where morality comes from in a godless universe doesn’t matter. It could be a learned social contract or an evolved behavior mechanism. Who cares? That doesn’t answer the question in a godless world WHY should I be moral if it’s not in my self interest?

>Yes, it does. You obviously, once more, haven’t actually bothered to look into the matter. You’re arguing from a position of ignorance on this one by all indications.

I reply: “You don’t know enough” is never a convincing answer. If anything it shows Projection on your part. I do know & so did Nitchie/Nietzsche. The answer is in a godless universe I DON’T HAVE to be moral if it is not in my own self interest to do so. Why should I? It’s not like I’m gonna go to Hell being bad & I can grab all the swag I can.

It’s a good thing I believe in & Fear God. Maybe you guys should rethink evangelizing people to Atheism. Because more than one convert is going to be thinking that way.
Matt, on May 7th, 2008 at 14:18 Said:

My points are not weak. Yours OTOH…..

Oh, I see. So because you think that your points are strong and you think mine are weak that hypocrisy is alright?
That’s an … interesting point of view.

Argument from Ignorance fallacy & Cognitive dissonance a classic case. Communists aren’t Atheists in your happy little fundamentalist atheist world. Catholics, Muslims and Jews are Theists but Communists aren’t Atheists? Amazing.

Just because you don’t agree with something does not make it false. Yes, it is common for Communists to be Atheists but it is not a prerequisite or a vital part of the communist system. Communism can still work, for example, if members of the populace believe in some supernatural power or another. To state it another way, Atheism can be an aspect of communism but it is far from a vital one. However, Catholics can’t be Catholics unless they believe in some form of higher being, namely the judeo-christian deity … and that IS a vital component.
It’s a difference you’re failing to see.

So having a group called the Union of the Godless that runs around Russia spreading Atheism & persecuting those who won’t conform somehow isn’t doing something in the name of Goddlessness (i.e. Atheism)? Wow! Your like the Atheist version of that guy Jeff on Coupling. Only less coherent & slightly more ridiculous.

Ooh, nice try but you’re misapplying logic there and once against trying to state that Communism = Atheism, while forgetting that Stalin was a meglomaniac and really rather power hungry. It is because of those aspects of his character that he did such things.

Yep this is a Jeff moment since I have no idea what you are talking about. What does “Richard Gere kissing people offensively” have to do with Atheistic genocide in the former USSR? At this point trying to argue with you rationally is futile and should give way to cruel mockery.

Simply using the same logical rationale you’re trying to apply to communism to what Gere did in India. Yes, the Gere example is absurd in exactly the same way your communism link is absurd. Gere upset a lot of people with that action but he certainly didn’t do it because he was a Buddhist, he did it because of his own character. Using your logic, Buddhists would be to blame for it.

Try to process. Therefore Theism has nothing to do with fighting against any non-theistic religion or philosophy, it is simply the belief in a Single God who creates

Not at all. One of the central doctrines of numerous branches of Christianity, for example, state that followers have to go out there and spread the word, convert the populace. Atheism has no such thing, which makes a world of difference; whereas it’s encouraged for many Christian denominations to go and convert the unbelievers (which has led to all sorts of horrible acts) … no one expects Atheists to do anything of the sort.

You deny the proposition KKK= Christianity but believe Theism is at fault when a member of a Theistic group does something wicked to someone else? It’s this the same thing! You don’t see the contradiction?

There is no contradiction at all, you just seem to fail at seeing the point. The KKK has perverted the message of Christianity and certainly do not follow official Christian dogma nor (and most importantly) are they a recognised religious organisation. Unlike, for example, the Vatican which has done all sorts of nasty things over the years while proclaiming it to be holy and part of God’s will … and they’re about as official as it gets.

Now if a KKK member in the name of Christ kills a poor black guy. Then Christianity is logically at fault. That is your principle applied. Logically & consistantly.

Then you’re utterly failing to understanding my PoV yet again. Christianity would not be at fault at all in this particular example because the KKK member is not a Christian, is not following Christian doctrine and is clearly mentally unbalanced. Now if he wasn’t a member of the KKK and followed the doctrine of a recognised Christian denomination as a basis for killing that victim then christianity would be to blame.

KKK members historically have professed the Deity of Christ & are Baptised therefore are Christians.

They are not a recognised Christian denomination by any stretch so your logic is absurd. The practices of the KKK also go pretty much completely against what could be considered standard Christian doctrine.

Dodging the issue doesn’t help you. Ok I conceed for the sake of argument morality is an evolved and or socially conditioned phenomena. I absolutely conceed it for the sake of argument! Now why should I choose to follow this phenomena that has evolved & or was conditioned if it at any time it goes against my interest?

Because it’s part of being a living organism, to put it as simply as possible. Pretty much all living things on a macro level (even some micro) act in the general best interests in regards to survival of the species. Humans, especially, are constructed to be social creatures and acting in an immoral manner will severely limit social advantages that might otherwise occur. That’s putting it as simply as I possibly can.

In a way being moral is related to self interest but not in the way you’re indicating. For example, you could be the last human on the planet but I severely doubt you’d start acting immorally (assuming there is no god/hell/whatever). You’d live in a way to survive but in an overall moral manner. By your argument, as an Atheist I should be acting immorally at any time when I thought I could safely get away with it … which I don’t happen to do. I am a pretty moral and ethical person without god so try to explain that.
Matt, on May 7th, 2008 at 14:49 Said:

I almost forgot about the Spanish Inquisition. It was started for political reasons … in part. But in at least equal parts it was also very religious in nature and has to share equal blame. It certainly could not have happened without religious components.

“It has been said that the zealots of the Inquisition, even in their greatest cruelty, believed themselves to be justified in what they did. We are asked to accept as a fact that they were deeply religious men who honestly and sincerely believed that they were serving God in what they did. We are told that they believed Jews were destined for damnation, and that it was their duty to save them from
that no matter what pain they inflicted on the bodies of the Jews here on Earth.”

“The Spanish Inquisition was used for both political and religious reasons. Spain is a nation-state that was born out of religious struggle between numerous different belief systems including Catholicism, Islam, Protestantism and Judaism.”
http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/WestEurope/SpanInqui.html

“The Crown and the Vatican were concerned with the idea of converts following non-Christian ways of life. There was also a realization in Spain and Rome that large amounts of wealth had been looted in 1468 and 1473 along with concern that those proceeds should have gone to the government and the Church. Certain behaviors (some actual religious practices - others created by the Inquisitors) were labeled by the Church as “Judaising” and were strictly prohibited under punishment of death. “
http://www.lilithgallery.com/library/christian/The_Spanish_Inquisition.html

And so on. So while religion was not the only cause of the Spanish Inquisition (and I never said it was) it was certainly a major contributing factor, quite possibly the biggest one.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th), on May 7th, 2008 at 17:47 Said:

>Just because you don’t agree with something does not make it false.

I reply: One should prove their views by logic & rational anaysis. You have failed in that area. I can’t MAKE YOU agree with the obvious. You can choose to be irrational.

>Yes, it is common for Communists to be Atheists but it is not a prerequisite or a vital part of the communist system.

I reply: I have shown that is not the case in the USSR. You couldn’t be an Theistic Communist in the USSR anymore than you can be an Atheist Cardinal at the Vatican.

>Communism can still work, for example, if members of the populace believe in some supernatural power or another. To state it another way, Atheism can be an aspect of
communism but it is far from a vital one. However, Catholics can’t be Catholics unless they believe in some form of higher being, namely the judeo-christian deity … and that IS
a vital component.

(The above will come back to haunt you)

I reply: Of course you can mix all sorts of beliefs it’s called Syncratism. You can even do the same with Protestantism & Catholicism(it’s called Anglicanism) There are
Syncratist Christian denomanations that combin New Age Paganism with Christianity. So what? This is off topic. The USSR was a militant offically Atheist State. That was the
LAW in that country. They had that law because the people in power where Atheists who believed religion was evil. You can NO MORE DISPUTE THIS rationally then I can rationally
claim Evolution is false because of the Second Law of Thermodymamics. You are objectively
wrong. Atheism was a vital part of their system. Religion according to their ideology was the opium of the People so in the name of Godlessness they wiped out Religious people as a threat to society. They where not bad people who happened to be Atheists. They believe there was no god & that belief in god was harmful(like you believe) & that this was the course they has to take.

>It’s a difference you’re failing to see.

I reply: I see it all to well you are just in denial because of your faith in your irrational blind dogma that Atheism cannot be guilty of anything evil but Theism can. It is not logical as I have shown & so far you have no logical rebuttle for me except to say “It’s Not True!” What is it you Brits say? Bullocks!

>Ooh, nice try but you’re misapplying logic there and once against trying to state that Communism = Atheism,

I reply: Well Soviet Communist (as well as Chinese) does equal Atheism because you would have found yourself in the Gulag if you claimed otherwise. It was the “national church” of the former USSR.

>while forgetting that Stalin was a meglomaniac and really rather power hungry. It is because of those aspects of his character that he did such things.

I reply: No that is just wishful thinking & special pleading and it betrays a lack of READING what Stalin himself believed. Yes he most likely was a nutjob but he was a nutjob that believed there was no God & that belief in God was harmful for humanity & nothing was immoral if it would wipe out the opium of the people so Communism would come.

> Simply using the same logical rationale you’re trying to apply to communism to what Gere did in India. Yes, the Gere example is absurd in exactly the same way your communism link is absurd. Gere upset a lot of people with that action but he certainly didn’t do it because he was a Buddhist, he did it because of his own character. Using your logic, Buddhists would be to blame for it.

I reply: I don’t follow Richard Gere’s carreer or his activities. So this means nothing to me. Pick another analogy this one is lost on me. As for him being a Buddhist he is not in
charge of a political state which reconizes Buddhism as the only True religion. Unlike the Atheist Stalin who headed a State that was LEGALLY & Offically an Atheist State.

>>Try to process. Therefore Theism has nothing to do with fighting against any non-theistic religion or philosophy, it is simply the belief in a Single God who creates

>Not at all. One of the central doctrines of numerous branches of Christianity, for example, state that followers have to go out there and spread the word, convert the
populace. Atheism has no such thing, which makes a world of difference; whereas it’s encouraged for many Christian denominations to go and convert the unbelievers (which has led to all sorts of horrible acts) … no one expects Atheists to do anything of the sort.

I reply: The Flaw in your “logic” is Yes Catholicism and may other Christian groups teach you must evangelize. But the Amish DON’T Evangelize. They are Christian (Believe in the
Trinity etc) but they an other Anabaptists dont evangalize & there are other examples. So you are lumping them in when another Christian asshole does something wicked like force some poor Jew to be baptized against his will. Jews even the Orthodox DON’T as a rule evangelize and they are theists. So when you make Asinine claims like if a Theist kills someone in the name of Theism then Theism is to blame it attacks them as well.
BTW just because YOUR personal subjective view of Atheism(or maybe you belong to an Atheist orginization that believes this) doesn’t believe in evanglizing others to dis-
believe in God doesn’t refute the FACT other Atheists disagree with you. Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and the Communists (what’s left of them) DO believe it is the duty of Atheists to enlighten (aka Evangelize) the rest of us Knuckle draging “non-rational” theistic throwbacks. This is pure logic I’m giving you. You are giving me nonsense.

>There is no contradiction at all, you just seem to fail at seeing the point. The KKK has perverted the message of Christianity

I reply: Yes I think so according to Orthodox Catholic Standards but THEY don’t believe the Catholic Church has the authority to objectively define what is Christianity. I find
it strange you as an Atheist deny the God of Catholicism & Christanity yet you somehow believe the Catholic Church has the authority to define what is a Christian? Or you
believe there is an objective Christianity YOU have the authoriy to define for all the other Christians. Curious & logically inconsistant. Anyway since you reconize the
Church’s Divine Right I can tell you as an expert in Catholic teaching YOU CAN objectively be a Christian if you believe the Trinity & and are Baptized even if you believe false
theological (like Luther bastard Sola Fide heresy) or moral (the KKK’s bastard belief one “race” of Men is superior to another)teaching. You are a heretic but still a Christian.

>and certainly do not follow official Christian dogma nor

I reply: They follow enough of Christian dogma(Trinity & Baptism) to technically be consisterd Christians, Just as child murderer Joel Steinbrener is technically a Jew
because his mother was one(according to Judaism). Even though his action are repugnate to Judaism. I have been shocked so far that you are ignorant of logic. But I am not suprised you know little about Theology. A warning Son. Challenging me on Theology is about as smart as a bible thumper with a 6th grade education challenging Dawkins on Evolution. You will lose.

>(and most importantly) are they a recognised religious organisation.

I reply: They are in the USA & historically they only allow white CHRISTIAN Protestant men in their group. So they are Christians even though by orthodox Catholic standards they
are heterodox in their protestant beliefs & their Rascist beliefs. Peter has Spoken threw the Pope end of Story. You have to operate within OUR rule when discussing these matters you can’t make up your own. Get it?

> Unlike, for example, the Vatican which has done all sorts of nasty things over the years while proclaiming it to be holy and part of God’s will … and they’re about as official as
it gets.

I reply: I don’t deny the Popes have sinned or the Cardinals. Jesus himself fortold there would be Shepards who would not spare the Sheep. So I am not suprised when yet again JC is 100% correct as per usual. But as for the claim of “recognised religious organisation” well recognised by whose standard? In England about a century ago the Vatican WAS NOT recognised as a legitmate Religion.

>Then you’re utterly failing to understanding my PoV yet again.

I reply: Yes. That is your fault. You won’t even tell me you age & you haven’t said anything coherant & your weird private “objective” vague definition of what is a Christian
(of which you Judge the KKK wanting) goes against everything I believe. Which you no doubt haven’t bothered to learn about if for the simple reason to filicitate better
communications.

>Christianity would not be at fault at all in this particular example because the KKK member is not a Christian, is not following Christian doctrine and is clearly mentally
unbalanced.

I reply: You are using imprecise & therefore inaccurate termonology. The KKK people are technically Christians since they confess the Deity of Christ, Trinity & are Baptized.
That is the Dogma of Trent. QUOTE”Whoever says the Baptisms of the Heretics & the Schismatics……is not a valid baptism let him be excommunicated.END QUOTE
Sure any beliefs they hold which contradict the Church (Sola Fide, Sola Scriputa, Black people are inferior, it’s moral to murder them etc) are false perversions(& of course let
me be clear I think there is a universe of moral difference between the mainline Protestants & the KKK). They are technically Christians. They are ALSO theists.
You problem is your deathless irrational defense of this false proposition QUOTE”It is one thing to be a member of a demographic and commit a bad act, it doesn’t mean that
demographic is responsible for that act. But if you do that act in the name of that demographic and follow the ideology of that group then the group is to blame.”END QUOTE

Even if I cast away the council of Trent from my argument & confess them non-christians my argument is still valid because the KKK members are still Theists. So are the Ethiopian Orthodox Theist & therefore if the KKK kill a Black man in the name of Theism according to your weird view all the black people in the EOC are responsible too because like the KKK they are Theists.

(Told you it would haunt you)

That is the logical application of your view. It is just plain nuts to anyone with an IQ above Three!

>Now if he wasn’t a member of the KKK and followed the doctrine of a recognised Christian denomination as a basis for killing that victim then christianity would be to blame.

I reply: Recognised by WHOSE standards? I run into Baptists & Funadmentalists all the time who to my face say I’m NOT a Christian but a Romanist. So this is another great flaw in your fuzzy thinking. No object univerally accept definitional standards. You are simply makingit up as you go along.

>They are not a recognised Christian denomination by any stretch so your logic is absurd. The practices of the KKK also go pretty much completely against what could be considered standard Christian doctrine.

I reply: You have not produced an objective criteria to judge them by. It’s clearly nothing more then your subjective understand of a Christian merely being someone who is
nice or just to other person. Muslims, Buddhists & even Atheists can be just & nice to others it doesn’t make them Christians. Baptism & confessing the Trinity does. You are
using a criteria I and a Billion other Catholics don’t believe. You are using a criteria that is inconsistant with Catholic theology. Christian Heretics no matter what wicked
evil things they believe are still Christians if they are Baptised & confess the Trinity.

>>Dodging the issue doesn’t help you. Ok I conceed for the sake of argument morality is an evolved and or socially conditioned phenomena. I absolutely conceed it for the sake of argument! Now why should I choose to follow this phenomena that has evolved & or was conditioned if it at any time it goes against my interest?

>Because it’s part of being a living organism, to put it as simply as possible.

I reply: Christianity IS NOT a living organism(there you go again like that upper class twit Dawkins projecting your Materialist beliefs on us). Christianity has no DNA & it has
no biology. It’s a living Spiritual entity.

>Pretty much all living things on a macro level (even some micro) act in the general best interests in regards to survival of the species. Humans, especially, are constructed to be
social creatures and acting in an immoral manner will severely limit social advantages that might otherwise occur. That’s putting it as simply as I possibly can.

I reply: Are we back to the question of morality without God? Nietzsche & I have a simple answer to that. Why should I care about morality if it’s not in my self interest?
Sure as long as it give me social advantages I will be moral BUT that won’t happen forever. Sooner or later an opportunity will come where I can cast away morality for
advancement. So why shouldn’t I? It’s not like I am going to go to hell for it & if I am never caught I will not go to Jail for it. I can live with that.

Good thing I fear God.

>In a way being moral is related to self interest but not in the way you’re indicating.

For example, you could be the last human on the planet but I severely doubt you’d start acting immorally (assuming there is no god/hell/whatever).

I reply: If I stopped believing in God tommorow of course I would STILL have some left over Christian moral conditioning (like you do) but if I willed to power I could overcome it.

>You’d live in a way to survive but in an overall moral manner. By your argument, as an Atheist I should be acting immorally at any time when I thought I could safely get away
with it … which I don’t happen to do. I am a pretty moral and ethical person without god so try to explain that.

I reply: You choose not too for whatever reason brings you authenticity. I would see no reason not to do whatever I want if I could get away with it. Of course I would have to
REALLY be convinced 110% there is no God. I often wonder if your average atheist 95% doesn’t believe in God & that 5% is enough to keep him in line. that small haunting
thought “What if I am wrong?”. Carl Sagan once said he tried to live as if there really was a God even though he was an Atheist. He even said if there was a God He thought He
would love him. Your good because you haven’t 100% cast off God AND you choose to hold this belief that morality still binds you when clearly it doesn’t IMHO.

Of course Christians who Dispair & or give into the sin of Presumption are just as dangerous as Atheists who follo

Matt’s Notepad

Blogs worth reading

Other good sites

Categories

EvolutionNews.Org: Reading comprehension skills needed.

61 Responses to “EvolutionNews.Org: Reading comprehension skills needed.”