The Threat of Atheism

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

In my experience atheists enjoy killing millions of Jews

If you're referring to Hitler, there is very little to suggest that he was an atheist and just as much to suggest that he wasn't

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1417,Hitler-Was-an-Atheist-Who-Killed-Millions-in-the-Name-of-Atheism-Secularism,Aboutcom

philologos

No, if it was just Hitler I was referring to we'd be getting off very lightly. His private memoirs and Nazi documents from the Nuremburg Trials indicate that he wanted to destroy Christianity too, but if we begin to talk about his Soviet colleagues, or his colleagues in the Far East and the Balkans we start to get an idea. Anyhow, like the_syco I merely made the tarring in jest. I don't believe that all atheists support mass murder.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes formerly the penalty of sin was death (Romans 6, Romans 1), however due to the role of Jesus Christ there is an option to accept His death as atonement for yours so that you will not be punished come the Day of Judgement.

I just have to say, that old chestnut seems loopier every time I hear it.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

smidgy wrote: »

I am a Christian and feel threatened by an atheistic society. T

Why would you give a shít? You've eternal bliss to look forward to in heaven. What happens down here is inconsequential.

It's us atheists that have to make the most of it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

No, if it was just Hitler I was referring to we'd be getting off very lightly. His private memoirs and Nazi documents from the Nuremburg Trials indicate that he wanted to destroy Christianity too,

Not considering himself a christian does not automatically mean he's an atheist

Jakkass wrote: »

but if we begin to talk about his Soviet colleagues, or his colleagues in the Far East and the Balkans we start to get an idea. Anyhow, like the_syco I merely made the tarring in jest. I don't believe that all atheists support mass murder.

Oh I know it was in jest, just wanted to clear up the common misconception that Hitler was an atheist

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the God of the Old Testament he waited entire generations to give people a chance to stop their sin before He punished them.

And God's hands are entirely clean in this period? He seemed to break many of his own sins many times over in this text.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

And God's hands are entirely clean in this period? He seemed to break many of his own sins many times over in this text.

God isn't accountable to a law that He created for human kind. I have yet to understand what you are referring to though. He is the one with the authority who will be punishing us for violating the law which He has given us so that we can be protected from evil, and that we can live honourably towards Him and to one another.

Zombrex

smidgy wrote: »

I am a Christian and feel threatened by an atheistic society. The reason for this is that I see atheism as destructive force since it enforces the belief that there is no eternal responsibility for ones actions.

So does Christianity?

Under Christian belief everyone is heading to hell since everyone sins (and thus deserves eternal destruction in a lake of fire). You were going to hell the first time you had improper thoughts about a woman or said God's name in vain.

You can be saved from this punishment by accepting Jesus as your saviour. But your actions are not relevant to this, simple that you genuinely believe this.

So under Christian belief there is no difference between having pre-marital sex and shooting up a school. You aren't going to be more eternally destroyed when you get to hell for doing the latter.

So if someone has already figured they are heading to hell anyway what stops them from going completely nuts? They have nothing to lose, they might as well enjoy this life with all the raping and killing they can fit in before they die.

smidgy wrote: »

I personally wouldn’t trust any individual from coming up with their own moral code because more often than not they will design it to suit themselves.

Under that logic every Christian is only a Christian because it suits themselves, otherwise they would not believe in Christianity and would instead believe in a different religion that again suited their own desires and wants.

If humans, in general, cannot decide something is correct without being influenced by their own desires, then surely this applies to Christians as much as anyone else?

smidgy wrote: »

My personal experience is that a person that does not believe in God (Jesus) will immediately assume that an unborn child is not alive. They will act on this and proceed with an abortion. Without any research into abortion they will derive their moral code to suit their circumstances. A Christian on the other hand would be compelled to assume that the unborn child is alive.

Why?

There is no clear instruction in the Bible about the status of unborn children, there are passages that can be (and have been) used to support either case, and for a long time Christians subscribed to the idea that the unborn foetus was not a person until well into the pregnancy, or even till after birth when it takes it first breath.

smidgy wrote: »

I don’t want to make this discussion about abortion but just mentioned it to illustrate the weakness of a human being in establishing his own moral code.

It could also be used as a good example of the weakness of human beings trying to interpret the unclear writings of holy books such as the Bible.

Personally I put very little weight in a moral code that cannot be explained in detail so that all its points can be made clear. You don't have to agree with the moral code but it should be at the very least possible to understand the details of it.

"Because God says so.." as a moral justification for something is deeply flawed, particularly if it cannot be established properly that this is actually what God is saying or not.

All the flaws and biases you attribute to atheists surely apply to Christians as well, and this will shape how they interpret your holy books and what message they are supposed to be taking from them.

At the very least one atheist explaining a moral decision to another atheist is expect to actually explain his position, the logic and rational behind it. A Christian just says "God says so here.." and then goes on about how no one can prove their interpretation is wrong. Hardly an improvement is it.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

God isn't accountable to a law that He created for human kind. I have yet to understand what you are referring to though. He is the one with the authority who will be punishing us for violating the law which He has given us so that we can be protected from evil, and that we can live honourably towards Him and to one another.

That he created.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

God isn't accountable to a law that He created for human kind. I have yet to understand what you are referring to though. He is the one with the authority who will be punishing us for violating the law which He has given us so that we can be protected from evil, and that we can live honourably towards Him and to one another.

I am referring to the countless times that he commanded people to kill each other, children included. Stonings, maimings, etc, etc.

I thought that God was imposing his morals on us because he hates sin? He is pure and never sins? Is commanding people to kill not a sin?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

God isn't accountable to a law that He created for human kind.

Surely the logic that God is holy would dictate that he is.

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

Surely the logic that God is holy would dictate that he is.

Doublethink, Wicky. Doublethink.

The favourite word of malevolent psychological-dictatorships.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I am referring to the countless times that he commanded people to kill each other, children included. Stonings, maimings, etc, etc.

That's divine punishment. Murder = unlawful killing is a sin. However God killing people for their sins and their transgressions is not unlawful. As I said the penalty for sin is death, but because we can accept Christ's death as our own we can be saved from divine punishment.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I thought that God was imposing his morals on us because he hates sin? He is pure and never sins? Is commanding people to kill not a sin?

God revealed laws upon us because He has created the world He knows how it operates, and He knows what we can do to protect ourselves from evil influences. God doesn't need these laws to determine what is righteous as God is righteousness itself.

Orion

Jakkass wrote: »

God isn't accountable to a law that He created for human kind. I have yet to understand what you are referring to though. He is the one with the authority who will be punishing us for violating the law which He has given us so that we can be protected from evil, and that we can live honourably towards Him and to one another.

Do as I say not as I do? So you're saying god's a hypocrite. Cool

Nodin

Jakkass wrote: »

In my experience atheists enjoy killing millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians and burning down synagogues, churches, and mosques and other horrific things

You'd find in the case of AH that a great many protestant, catholic and eastern orthodox were the ones doing the killing, often with the idea of 'christ killers' at the forefront of their motivation. As ever, oversimplification tends to undermine a case.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

In my experience atheists enjoy killing millions of Jews, Muslims and Christians and burning down synagogues, churches, and mosques and other horrific things.

In my experience, people with moustaches have commited some of the most horrible examples of mass murder in the 20th century.

For some reason, I'm not short-sighted enough to believe that their moustaches were the reason they did it, though...












(Oh, I nearly forgot the smiley face to somehow distract attention from how silly my comment is... )

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

In my experience, people with moustaches have commited some of the most horrible examples of mass murder in the 20th century.

For some reason, I'm not short-sighted enough to believe that their moustaches were the reason they did it, though...

That's my point!

You should be applying this same logic to what people allegedly do in the name of Christianity or other religions.

When people note the relation between atheism and these things, people get all on the defensive. It's quite humorous actually. If you don't want this to be raised, don't use the same fallacious reasoning for Christianity.

herya

Jakkass wrote: »

When people note the relation between atheism and these things, people get all on the defensive. It's quite humorous actually. If you don't want this to be raised, don't use the same fallacious reasoning for Christianity.

So tell the Christians who commit atrocities not to quote God and religion as their reasons. Unfortunately they do. There's your relation, not the irrelevant fact that they were baptised many years ago.

philologos

herya wrote: »

So tell the Christians who commit atrocities not to quote God and religion as their reasons. Unfortunately they do. There's your relation, not the irrelevant fact that they were baptised many years ago.

What do you think the purpose in the mind of Stalin for persecuting people of religious faith was? State atheism clearly. However just because Stalin was an atheist doesn't mean that all atheists support religious persecution.

Likewise, the purpose in Pope Urban II's mind for the First Crusade was to destroy the Islamic threat to Christian Europe. However, just because Pope Urban II sanctioned it doesn't mean that it is advocated by Jesus Christ, or that all Christians support slaughtering Muslims and Jews.

All I ask is that you recognise that this reasoning against Christianity is fallacious just as the reasoning of blaming atheism for persecuting Christians, Muslims and Jews is fallacious. Not that hard is it?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

That's my point!

You should be applying this same logic to what people allegedly do in the name of Christianity or other religions.

When people note the relation between atheism and these things, people get all on the defensive. It's quite humorous actually. If you don't want this to be raised, don't use the same fallacious reasoning for Christianity.

Because when someone actively kills someone in the name of God, it is easy to tell why they are doing it.

Why?

Because they said 'God told me to kill'

I rest my 2,090,000 cases.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think the purpose in the mind of Stalin for persecuting people of religious faith was? State atheism clearly. However just because Stalin was an atheist doesn't mean that all atheists support religious persecution.

Likewise, the purpose in Pope Urban II's mind for the First Crusade was to destroy the Islamic threat to Christian Europe. However, just because Pope Urban II sanctioned it doesn't mean that it is advocated by Jesus Christ, or that all Christians support slaughtering Muslims and Jews.

All I ask is that you recognise that this reasoning against Christianity is fallacious just as the reasoning of blaming atheism for persecuting Christians, Muslims and Jews is fallacious. Not that hard is it?

Sorry. Could you point out where in the atheist bible it says kill the non-non-believers?

Here, take my copy of it:

























God does not exist.

Orion

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Because they said 'God told me to kill'

I rest my 2,090,000 cases.

They're still at it - it's gone up to 2,150,000 now

philologos

Macros42 wrote: »

Do as I say not as I do? So you're saying god's a hypocrite. Cool

No I amn't. There were conditions that mankind were to follow, and there were conditions that God agreed to in the Old Covenant. If you follow my laws you will remain in the land of Israel and I will bless your descendants to thousands of generations. If you do not follow my laws I will cast you into other nations, I will have foreign armies invade you and take you into captivity until there is repentance. This is what happened two times:
1) Assyrian invasion circa 750BC.
2) Babylonian invasion circa 570BC.

God wasn't in violation of His own laws at all. Infact by punishing for transgression God was holding up to the terms of the Old Covenant. He offers us his mercy if we are willing to hold His laws in our hearts.

Likewise in the New Covenant.

God gave us the forgiveness of Jesus Christ, only if we are willing to repent of our sins and to start afresh with His guidance. If not, He will punish those who reject Him.

In both cases God is holding to his side of the deal. God is not subject to the terms that He has placed on humans, He has kept to His side of the deal. However continually humans have failed Him to this very day.

If you actually read the Torah and the New Testament you would have got this by now.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Because when someone actively kills someone in the name of God, it is easy to tell why they are doing it.

Why?

Because they said 'God told me to kill'

I rest my 2,090,000 cases.

Doesn't mean that is the correct position as in Christianity though. When a leader organises the purging of religion in a nation how do you think they normally justify it? Just curious.

All I'm asking you to do is stop being so stubborn and accept that your reasoning is highly flawed. Just because people have killed in the name of God doesn't mean that it is true Christianity. Infact it couldn't be.

Orion

Jakkass wrote: »

He offers us his mercy if we are willing to hold His laws in our hearts.

If not, He will punish those who reject Him.

Sorry I misunderstood. So it's if we worship him he won't kill/torture us but if we reject his very existence we're fair game. Now I get it.

He must have pretty low self-esteem to insist on that though.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you actually read the Torah and the New Testament you would have got this by now.

I have. I don't debate in ignorance. I like to know the people who want to kill/torture me so I can understand them better.

philologos

Macros42 wrote: »

Sorry I misunderstood. So it's if we worship him he won't kill/torture us but if we reject his very existence we're fair game. Now I get it.

It's rather simple. If you don't follow by God's commandments He has every right to punish anyone if He has authority over humanity. Even more so than the police have the right to punish you should you be arrested and charged with a crime.

Anyhow. It's probably best if you have questions about divine punishment to ask it in the Christianity forum rather than here. More people to deal with your questions than little old me.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

All I'm asking you to do is stop being so stubborn and accept that your reasoning is highly flawed.

Oh, how... reasonable of you. Is this you playing victim again? I'm unimpressed.

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because people have killed in the name of God doesn't mean that it is true Christianity. Infact it couldn't be.

Of course not. No one could read the OT and get the idea that unbelivers should be killed.

:rolleyes:

When a leader organises the purging of religion in a nation how do you think they normally justify it? Just curious.

Religion posed a threat to Nazism and Stalinism, for both required a form of hero-worship in which God was a clear rival. Even if Stalin believed in God, he still would needed to have pursued his course of action, to ensure the success of his new communist (anti-royalist = anti-religion) society.

This should be obvious to anyone who even badly reads history...

Flamed Diving

Killing is against Christian belief, people...













Erm, which one?

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

If you believe you are good it doesn't necessarily follow that you are good.

What the hell does that mean? I think I'm a good person, but you say that I might not actually be good? Says who?!! What do I have to do to be good?

I'm following the New Testament understanding of the Torah which is written clearly.

Is there anything you disagree with in the New Testament? Any sort of law, practice, custom or moral? Plus I don't think it's written clearly now is it? There's a lot of metaphor in there. I was personally told by Fanny Cradock that the only way to figure out what's what is to:

You determine this by going back to the original authors and seeing what was their understanding and intent. I'll agree that there isn't always consensus, but such is life.http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60101689&postcount=28

How the McJaysus can you say that it's written clearly?

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus died for my sins, I was baptised into his death (Romans 6:3), Jesus has been ressurrected. I am a new creation in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17). If I have been forgiven my sins, I am also to forgive the sins of others.

Yes formerly the penalty of sin was death (Romans 6, Romans 1), however due to the role of Jesus Christ there is an option to accept His death as atonement for yours so that you will not be punished come the Day of Judgement.

If this is the sort of crap you're going to be replying with, I give up. I'm going back to my cave for a while.

crotalus667

Jakkass wrote: »

What do you think the purpose in the mind of Stalin for persecuting people of religious faith was? State atheism clearly.

No it is not clearly state atheism , well at least not to anyone that is familiar with former USSR , Stalin’s motives where to create state worship . He was in essence redirecting the religious and royal family worship towards the state which he controlled .

As for Hitler his atheism has been greatly exaggerated all one has to do is listen to his speeches where he thanks “his lord and saviour Jesus Christ”

Nether Stalin or Hitler killed any one in the Name of Atheism . However you will find many accounts of people committing mass murder in the name of Christianity and many other religions

Jakkass wrote: »

However, just because Pope Urban II sanctioned it doesn't mean that it is advocated by Jesus Christ, .

Correct however we know that jesus would of advocated it because in several places of the new testament he endorsed the old testament law and instructed it be fallowed in it’s entirety


Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

It's rather simple. If you don't follow by God's commandments He has every right to punish anyone if He has authority over humanity. Even more so than the police have the right to punish you should you be arrested and charged with a crime.

That's one of the most horrible propositions I've ever heard and I'm glad I have nothing to do with that god. I happily reject him.