|
Post by ostravan on Apr 15, 2009 23:18:09 GMT -5
Buzzardhut (aka Buzzardcunt) was my neighbour. He is in actuality a cowed, hen-pecked moron who pretends to be an internet beacon. Probably one of the most pathetic individuals I know.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 15, 2009 23:21:53 GMT -5
Buzzardhut (aka Buzzardcunt) was my neighbour. He is in actuality a cowed, hen-pecked moron who pretends to be an internet beacon. Probably one of the most pathetic individuals I know. Somehow I am not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 16, 2009 4:00:46 GMT -5
That pisses me off.
That one gets thrown around as if they were they were 'killing in the name of...' with atheism. It's worth noting that, although Stalin was indeed an atheist, his conflicts with the Church came from the fact that he saw it as a threat to his own power. Any other organisation that would compete with the Communist Party for the loyalty of Soviet citizens would similarly find itself on his shit-list. But that was hardly his raison d'etre, he had a plan and that plan did not involve the church or anyone who could change that plan. More of a side-effect when it came down to it.
And with the church as powerful as it has been for so long, it's not like there weren't valid reasons to attack or hate the church nor were there many forces that could compete with it or overpower it. Anybody on top of the hill long enough will be challenged for the title of king.
But at any rate, yes, that was a part of the whole ordeal, just not nearly an atheist version of a holy war, on par with specifically christian or muslim wars where religion was the thrust.
|
|
ytdn
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by ytdn on Apr 16, 2009 5:31:25 GMT -5
That pisses me off.
That one gets thrown around as if they were they were 'killing in the name of...' with atheism. It's worth noting that, although Stalin was indeed an atheist, his conflicts with the Church came from the fact that he saw it as a threat to his own power. Any other organisation that would compete with the Communist Party for the loyalty of Soviet citizens would similarly find itself on his shit-list. My History teacher put Stalin's view on religion and God very simply- Stalin wanted to make himself the closest you could get to a God in secular society. That was part of the 'Cult of Personality'. Any other gods, whether Yahweh or Allah or anythign else, were a threat to his Godhood. I read in a history book about how in Poland after the Soviets invaded, the Soviets had a very special way of 'converting' the kids in the schools from Catholicism (Poland being a very Catholic country) to Stalinism. They'd tell the kids "You pray to God for food. So pray". The kids would pray, and then after a few minutes, the Soviets would say "See? You pray to God but he doesn't give any food. Now pray to our Great Leader Stalin for food." The kids would start to pray again, and almost immediatly some soldiers would roll in a big tabel full of food. "See? Stalin gives you food while God does not. Can't you see who's better now?" This is only my opinion, but I'd say that Stalin was less of a atheist and more of a narcissist- He didn't believe in a God, he believed he was God- or at least wanted his people to think he was one. Also, in the past when there were 'Holy Wars', the actual aim tended not to be about God- it was about land grabs and greed and all the usual things that lead to governments sending their soldiers far away to fight and die. However, telling your soldiers "We're going to Jerusalem to get land from those Arabs" isn't as an effective motivator as "We're going to Jerusalem because God wanst us to".
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Apr 16, 2009 12:00:28 GMT -5
Got it. I HAVE heard that one before, just not by that name. And yes, the puddle analogy is an excellent rebuttal. It's actually not an excellent rebuttal, seeing as how it proves nothing. It's just one of these "witty" (MASSIVE sarcasm quotes) replies that theists use when they're losing an argument. It really annoys me, the way theists argue. They never give you a straight answer to basic questions, and I get a lot of this answer a question with another question shit. I think you're misunderstanding the basic thrust of both the argument and its rebuttal.
|
|
Zabimaru
Full Member
Always amused and bemused
Posts: 241
|
Post by Zabimaru on Apr 24, 2009 17:47:50 GMT -5
I don't know if it's my "favorite", but I'm getting mighty annoyed at all the talk about atheists and morality. Specifically, I've once again been told that atheism is oh so dangerous, because atheists don't have an "absolute and unchangeable moral code." This means that we might just decide that something bad is suddenly moral! I've been told many examples, about how atheists don't have anything stopping us from suddenly deciding that racism or slavery is good, or that we should rape women, and so on. Good, honest religious folk on the other hand, they have a book. A book that always tells them exactly what to do and is unchanged through the ages, so any large swing like that is totally impossible. Yeah, right. I like to remind these people that throughout recorded history, up to a couple of generations ago, almost everyone has been religious (with a few exceptions, mainly in the east). And, more to the point since it's mostly American Christians who use this argument against me, ever since America was invaded by Europeans, it has been mostly inhabited by Christians. And morals have still flip-flopped in the extreme. Slavery, interracial marriage, alcohol prohibition, stores being open on Sundays, and a lot of other issues have seen great big swings in public opinion, even though the population has historically been almost completely Christian. Christians may have brought slavery to America, but they also helped abolish it (Lincoln's questionable religious convictions aside). So, yeah, being a Christian (or of any other religion) doesn't guarantee that you never change your mind on the big issues. And that's not even mentioning the fact that most big religions, especially Christianity it seems, are broken up into numerous sects that can't agree on what their holy book says. They don't even agree with in the group; see for instance this article about 19 catholic priests who want to allow gay marriage and gay priests: www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186381,00.html I'm sorry for the rant, but it just bothers me when people are totally blind to reality and history. Morals evolve with time, no matter if you're an atheist or a theist, and that's a good thing, not something to be feared.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 24, 2009 19:07:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by incognito on Apr 25, 2009 0:19:18 GMT -5
Favorite? hmmm, i like the good ole "since you dont believe there is a god then you have no morals."
or the "evolution is false because of banana's blah blah blah"
but a favorite? i guess that would be "You dont believe in god?! look around! who created all this then?" /facepalm
|
|
jes
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by jes on Apr 26, 2009 12:59:43 GMT -5
I don't suppose my mother could help being a sort of fundie — she was from the hills of Tennessee, never got past 7th grade (mainly because the closest high school was 2 hours away when she was growing up in the 1920s and early 1930s), and never bothered to try to educate herself beyond that. But, back when I was a teeny-bopper and questioned any christian crap — or, for that matter, did or said anything that conflicted with her ideas of right and wrong — she'd always say, "Who put you up to that?"
I don't think she was implying that Satan himself had communicated with me directly. (Yes, she was sort of fundie but she wasn't outright insane). Instead, she was implying that some of my hoodlum friends must be leading me astray.
Like, here I was, straight A student, president of the National Honor Society, not in contact with any hoodlum in any sense and yet, here she was implying that I was too dumb to do any research and thinking on my own.
Oh well, my mother has been dead for almost 10 years now, and I miss her because for the most part, when not in quasi-fundie mode, she really was a great mom. But, damn, that "Who put you up to that?" still rankles.
|
|