Slashdot Mirror

I'm quite sure that most of these bastards had/have a religion, so while I agree with your point that religion has been used and abused to murder in its name, that does not mean that the opposite of religion (atheism) is the true cause, nor does the above rant gives any argument why and how atheism leads to mass murder.

Communism in most countries has been militantly atheistic, engaging in harsh suppression of religion and programs for the spread of militant atheism. The Soviets even established an All-Union League of the Godless and museums of atheism in former churches. (North Korea still executes Christians.) At the same time, Communism was responsible for killing about 100,000,000 people in the last century. There were even incidents of cannibalism in the People's Republic of China to prove your loyalty to the party, literally eating the rich. The brutality of communism was one that repeated itself from country to country to country. Stalin outdid Hitler in body count, and Mao dwarfed Stalin. As a percentage of his country, Pol Pot outdid Mao. The vile regime of North Korea is still engaged in horror after horror after horror.

How is that that Communism, allegedly founded on a scientific basis, stressing rationality and scientific though, with principles regarded as altruistic (from each according to his ability to each according to his need), repeatedly produced such carnage and such leaders? Do you think it is possible that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of man at work there?

It's about time they opened up a museum showing the truth.

It's quite clear that there's a consipracy amongst godless scientists to cover up the clear existence of God, and to disprove the clear evidence in the bible that the animals were created, and then man was created. And after man, God created the animals. It says so in the bible, so it must be true. and if the bible is false, then how did the eye evolve? And what are all those fossils doing at the tops of mountains?

I hope they disprove other heretics such as Keplar, who believed the earth went round the sun, when a simple observation of the sun rising, and any rational interpretation of the bible will prov that the opposite is true.

They'll just try to teach you a bunch of evil stuff about Darwin and other Godless Commies.

Content aside, the problem is that actually teaching has become really difficult these days in schools. With the (non-funded) requirements put on schools by "No Child Left Behind", Bush has recreated nationally the same mess he made as Governor of Texas. Kids aren't being taught in school, they're being made to memorize, and they're trained to take a specific test, which hasn't even been proven a valid metric.

Maybe if the teachers were actually allowed to teach the kids, they could actually engage them appropriately and keep them in school.

(1) Everyone (administration, parents, teachers) hates--HATES--the kids. As in "this school would be fucking perfect if it wasn't for all these god damn high school students everywhere!"

(2) Public schools make no profit. Because only things that make a profit matter (Right, Slashdotters, open marketeers, yes, yes? Hmmmm?) they are a tremendously poor investment and have no money relative to just about anything else in the world.

(3) Nobody in the U.S. things education is necessary anyway anymore. Science is for the godless commies, and lack of knowledge won't hurt your career, you're owed a great career because you're American and white, no matter what your level of education. And if the world won't give it to you, you'll bomb the fucking world, not try to keep a bunch of kids in school or something.

--

Those are the problems with the American high school system.

They'll just try to teach you a bunch of evil stuff about Darwin and other Godless Commies.

(At least, that seems to be the current American zeitgeist.)

what part of being underwater in 100 years is a partisan issue?

Hmmm.. isn't it interesting that the coastal areas tend to vote one way and the interior (i.e. higher ground) tends to vote another?

Drown, you New York and San Francisco hippies! Drown!! The godless shall drown, while The Faithful have the tall church steeples.

Am I the only one that finds it disturbing that we now have 'Czars' in the United States? It may just be a title, but it may also be a 'repeat it often enough and they believe it' situation.

      Along with Homeland. And secret police. and a wall. and big lies to invade a country.

      Switch godless to theocracy, and it's like we're in some kind of mirror image parallel Cold War Soviet Union.

  rd

Hell, the golden rule is practically the guiding algorithm behind civilized society. Were my parents, or their parents who taught them, simply borrowing a system of morality from Judeo-Christianism? I don't know. If so, that's fine. But I think the fundamental Western moral systems we live by function just fine when divorced from spiritual faith.

FWIW. Confucious formulated a corrolary to the golden rule ~500 years before JC: "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." Score +1 for the godless atheists.

The Soviet Union and most of it's offshoots appealed to atheism as an official stance on religion (or the rejection of), and it never stopped the government of the USSR from stepping on the people. A couple of the offshots of the Soviets; North Korea and the regieme in Cambodia were both of the same mind, but instead of appealing to "god" for righteous justification, they all appealed to glory or greatness.

So where's the logic that godlessness is supposed to bring?

It's best for one to avoid the behavior they find abhorrent in their rivals and enemies, but amazingly it's something I see Humanists doing all the time; emulating the exact fundamentalist behavior they decry.

At least, two books, #7, Richard Dawkins book, and #17, A Letter to a Christian Nation, have atheist overtones.

You forgot "CULTURE WARRIOR" at #3 by noted atheist Bill O'Reilly, and "THE MYSTICAL LIFE OF JESUS" at #13 by Sylvia Browne. Oh, right - the world is so "anti-religion" nowadays. It's actually news that atheists have books that are selling now, but "Godless" by Ann Coulter and "Deliver Us From Evil" by Sean Hannity are, of course, not any cause for special note.

Let me just quote Jon Stewart on this one: "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely, in broad daylight, openly wearing symbols of their religion, perhaps around their necks. And maybe - dare I dream it - maybe one day there could even be an openly Christian president. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."

But does that really matter? Seems likely that the atheist would be a Democrat or independent. He'd never get a safe Republican seat like Utah. The important question is how much of an effect godlessness would have in the swing states. I'd like to see how the figures break down in different states.

That's a fair point. I chose U-taw as the canonical example of a backward, priest-ridden state. But this is by no means a purely partisan Democratic/Republican division. The study cited above claimed that 51% of the American population, as of 1999, would not vote for an atheist. Some of those 51% must be Democrats, and probably more than a few. In a swing state, that's quite enough to secure the result for the other side.


I must say that this is a stark contrast to Britain where a candidate puttingtoo much emphasis on his religion would be viewed with a certain level of distrust.

How true. Tony Blair puts too much emphasis on his religion, and I certainly wouldn't trust him...

but seriously, do you imagine that an atheist is going to win in Utah any time in the next fifty years? Dare to dream.

But does that really matter? Seems likely that the atheist would be a Democrat or independent. He'd never get a safe Republican seat like Utah. The important question is how much of an effect godlessness would have in the swing states. I'd like to see how the figures break down in different states.

I must say that this is a stark contrast to Britain where a candidate puttingtoo much emphasis on his religion would be viewed with a certain level of distrust.

It seems that Sony is not content with forcing hundreds of foreigners to wait in line, in the cold rain, just to earn a few dollars for food .. now it's taunting disappointed fans worldwide by pulling apart a perfectly good PS3, taking pictures of its wrecked insides, and just posting it on the web to get page views. Is this sickening snuff photography par for the course in this godless age, and will the degenerate hoots of paedophile basement-dwellers clicking furiously from one voyeuristic desecration to the next drown out the heart-wrenching sobs of the child you know whose Christmas dreams have been forever ruined because of this soulless, wretched visual excursion into the depths of Sony's capitalist depravity?"

But then again, No Real libertarian is a Objectivist, they are instead Objectionists.

"For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."

Ayn Rand - September 1971

"Brief Summary" - The Objectivist
As quoted From the Ayn Rand Institute's website

"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies."

Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?" - Philosophy: Who Needs It

Aynnie used to be a darling of libertarian leaning conservatives, until the great bookburning of the reagancomdedy, when someone explained to the hammerheads that she was really a godless slut, and they burned her books along with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.

You may have noticed that i use a small l for libertarian. This is intentional, because what passes for the Libertarian Party has very little to do with true libertarianism. All those clowns seem to want to do is eliminate the minimum wage, and end eminent domain, they could care less about other things, like due process of law and habeas corpus, you know, REAL LIBERTY.

Your anti-global warming quip was off mark also. Most anti-global warming tripe is passed by the corporate funded faux libertarian tanks with Cato at its helm. Something closer to True libertarian thought can be found at Raimondo's antiwar dot com. Those faux-libertarian think tanks are doing a great disservice to libertarianism with their anti global warming garbage. They should instead be focusing upon effective market solutions to greenhouse emissions, instead of letting lame-brained leftyist anti-market solutions muck it up even worse. One quick and easy method would be to apply the accounting principle of future value for remediation of greenhouse gases done today, as well as factoring future valuations into present-day increased greenhouse gas emissions. That would greatly reduce the balance sheet liability for the cost of remediation, and place the burden where it belonged. See how easy that is?

That being gay is a sin and they are all evil.

Unless they're a Republican, and then they can have all the pages they want.

Both sides are hypocritical, but if the Republicans are going to stand around calling the Democrats Godless heathens, at least it's not a surprise when the Democrats act that way.

No it is not a trap.

In the USA this a NewChristianConservative [AKA: Bushit Perverts] Government recruiting plan
for their superior HomoSapientSapient (HSS) race/breed that will retake (with the force of god) this holy
country from those damn peace-loving godless big-brained Neanderthals of the world.

Oh, there are many HomoSapientPrescient (HSP) impure offspring of HomoSapientSapients and Neanderthals
fornication that will be the first sent to the camps for exploitable labor and purification for the forthcoming
NewChristianConservative WorldOrder.

God bless america and lets all wave a flag with a christian cross of doom and damnation.

I did not say that morality comes from a fear of punishment. Morality comes from God. You are right, you don't need someone that has been hurt to tell you that some violent act is wrong. God has put a knowledge of Himself in the heart of each of us. However, though we know that something is wrong, murderers and rapist ignore this knowledge that is the fault of their fallen nature, not God's. I as a person can't tell an atheist what to do, for the simple reason that, as much as he, am not the source of that morality. Morality is from God and is universal, it is the same morality for me as for that murderer. You cite the Christians that have done evil godless things. However, again I state that their is no reason for you to have a problem with whatever they did. Christians that are consistent do not act in this manner, additionally, atheists that are consistent are murderers. You will jump in here and state that no all atheist are murderers. I agree. Not all Christians are killers, etc either. You ask how atheist have done good because they are being inconsistent with their world view. We are all fallen human beings that suffer from the effects of sin but "by one man sin entered the world and by one Man the world will be saved" Adam sinned and pain and suffering have been apart of the lives of all on earth ever since. Jesus Christ died for this sin and Christians can confidently look forward to a new life free of this pain after we die and go to heaven. Those that are not saved will be damned to hell, which is constant pain and suffering forever.

Your statement that "slavery or the murder of Jews, for example, both things that entire Christian societies have supported" is unfair. I, a christian, do not support these things for the exact reason that I am a christian. I believe in the sanctity of human life because I believe that humans are created in God's image and given a living soul that makes us different from the animals.

Your definition of religion exclusive to humanism and atheism. You want to call people to a either standard than debase acts of violence and the reason you give for this is that "you know" that such things are wrong. You got this knowledge from "within" and you believe this standard of morality pre-existed you and will continue after you have died. Therefore, I say again that this is a religion.

God's plan is perfect. Sin and corruption have not altered that. I have the confident assurance that God will never allow this sin and corruption to harm me more than I can bear. Should I get cancer and die, I will go to be forever with my Savior. Should you get cancer and die, you have nothing to look forward to except nothingness which will in actuality be eternity of hell.

Disease is present as a result of sin. God offers a remedy for this sin, not the cause of it. Yes, God calls for the destruction of sin and sinners. Those who continually rebel against His law. Not random senseless killings and destruction.

On another note, the entire world has surpassed the United States in Science and Engineering. The US is currently on a downward spiral into a second world type of stagnation and ignorance. China gearing up for their new role of the superpower.

Neocons are planning an invasion of Mexico to liberate them.

Polar bears are our competitors. The fewer of them there are, the less likely one will eat your dog, or your kid. The only reason we should regret their extinction is that it may cause a shortage of rugs.

Let me also add that bears are also _godless killing machines_. It is up to Heroes like President Bush and all the SUV owners in this great land of ours to drive our way to a bear-free world. Then pave it, and chrome the moon.

</colbert>

Well, yeah, if you're some sort of Godless rationalist. But that statement won't mean much to those who believe a cosmic balance is gazing down for appeasement.