I am sure that Mr. Dawkins would consider you getting him some more book-cash by buying his anti-theism book, to be a fully acceptable alternative to the listed activities.
Incidentally, when are we going to stop pretending that this is a question of "anti-evolution"? He doesn't get said book-cash from presenting evolution, he gets it by attacking religion--even with this new tone of playing the victim.
The clever equivocation of using "evolution" to mean not "evolutionary processes occur" (which most theists agree with anyway, including myself and, say, the entire Catholic Church), but rather the untestable, unscientific position of, essentially, "only evolution occurs" as a causal factor in human origins, I do have to give him kudos for, though. Nice way to set up the False Dichotomy of "science versus religion", even if the "science" presented isn't actually science, but rather an untestable inference in the domain of philosophy.
...and you don't seem amenable to reason in your other posts...
Tell me something that at least -one- of us believes you actually believe.
Every religion thinks their translation and interpretation is correct.
And what do you conclude from this? "None of them is correct" is not a logically valid conclusion, by the way.
You obviously also believe you have the correct interpretation. That's amusing.
How so? It's a daily circumstance in every branch of science.
Care to share with us your One True Interpretation (and translation)?
Sure. Just not here. There's too much content to do it exhaustively. More like something to be done when we (or whoever you'll be providing as a proxy) have lots of time...
Slavery still ok?
For all cases without the possibility of a free-enterprise system and 401K plans, say, due to it being impossible to be there due to 2000 years of necessary human history preceding these, where it is the necessary means of survival of the population and, where there are extensive rules for treatment of such "slaves" (better than most HR departments specify for modern wage-slaves, actually)... absolutely.
How should women be treated?
They should be theologically further teaching highly-informed men, like Acts 18:26 says. Knowledge over all, disregarding the usual deliberate misrepresentation of Paul.
If you're not 100% literal in every reading of every passage, how do you determine which passage is to be interpreted in which way?
Same as you do with any book. Get good with understanding context.
You realize, of course, that -my- having the One True Interpretation, logically, says nothing about whether or not it exists, and you suggesting otherwise is a complete non-sequitur, though, correct? Personally, I expect my understanding to become more exhaustive and more refined even into the afterlife. Is there any problem with holding that view, much as we don't ever purport to be "done with science"? No, naturally, as you already know as you suggest otherwise.
From your perspective, I'm sure that's true. Much as, knowing little about Japanese politics, I could not hope to differentiate the supportable stances from the nonsupportable ones. You not bothering to understand the subject matter, though, does not mean that a correct understanding is not to be found.
Still, on balance, not nearly the number of "schisms" and discrete positions as, say, science.
Definitions of "Christian" are just as open to interpretation as the underlying religious texts. Go ask some southern baptists if Mormons and Catholics are Christians.
That is to say, open to interpretation very little. That multiple interpretations are claimed, does not mean that multiple interpretations are valid. You argument is no more sensible than to say that if I interpret Quantum Mechanics outside of of anything related to the mainline Interpretations (e.g. Copenhagen, Everett), that my interpretation is equally true, or the mainline Interpretations equally false. No. You are making an Argument From Ignorance here, based on your -personal- knowledge, which is hardly remotely definitive. Regardless, even in total there is nowhere near the variance in views as suggested by your "Scotsman" objection. The defining documentation (i.e. "the bible") allows for little variance on a topic-by-topic basis, unless one is simply ignoring the text. That scenario, however common it may be, is irrelevant to the issue.
Your defence of Christianity would be more coherent if you acknowledged that violence is a direct result of moralism.
Sorry, I can't acknowledge the completely absurd. Can you give me some statistics showing that violent felons are mainly incarcerated for "moralism"?
Perhaps how historical wars were started by people being "too moral"?
How about the entire history of evolution, for which you, according to you yourself, owe the ability to even cognitively form and make such a claim? Biological forms killing other biological forms was driven not by resource competition, but because of a desire to be "too moral"?
Self-contradictory arguments are dismissable. Arguments so self-contradictory they contradict -the existence of the arguer himself-, are just amusing.
Lie on. You are charged with advocating Christianity in the face of opposition, by Christ himself.
Don't blame me for your failure on that point, nor for your failure in wishing that being right is altered, not by a logical argument on your part, but merely by calling what's right "self-righteous".
Because people caring whether they offend other beings seems to follow logically and obviously from "survival of the fittest" (making enemies makes you and your offspring less likely to survive).
It could, in certain situations. Alternately, one might take the viewpoint that the two seconds needed to listen to the "that's offensive" objection is two seconds of unneeded inefficiency, and simply wipe out the speaker and his entire culture. The only means you have to differentiate the two proposals of correctness, is which was more successful in DNA propagation (or, at minimum, you have provided and demonstrated validity for no other means). By those standards there is not the least reason to object to the latter if the context is such that it, in fact, worked by that DNA-success criteria. In short, it addresses no normative or ethical question at all--for any given proposal, the exact opposite can be proposed, and if we actually follow up to evaluate the alternatives by that worldview, it rapidly becomes an inane question of projected and assumed "survival success". The fundamental philosophical problem here, though, is that the worldview of Darwinian Naturalism -needs the opposition to reject its standards-, and -needs the opposition to retain its own standards, while simultaneously attacking them-. In the wider cultural conflict between theism and atheism, application of -your- position would be to simply note we are the numerically-dominant subculture, and should feel no constraint, by -your own- standards, in taking yours out entirely, and sooner rather than later. You count on this not happening, and rather for us to continue to behave with Christian behavioral norms as you reject and attack them. This is what makes your position fundamentally unsound as a proposed objective (applicable to all) worldview.
In other words, you can't refute critique of religion just by declaring all critique-worthy people "not really religious".
Do you prefer that I refute your critique on the basis that, regardless of what the worldview is, your evaluation is such that whatever is numerically more prevalent in the population automatically "loses", as a simple matter of generating more statistical opportunities for what you see (though don't formally support) as "negative" occurrences? If you have statistical backing for the notion that -per capita- atheism leads to better outcomes (by some standard) than religion, then present it. Notably, this is assiduously avoided--we have finger-pointing anecdotes as the limit of what advocates of atheism are willing to present that could be of -scientific- value. And, understandably so, as the outcome of such an analysis is already clear simply by our USSR test-case alone.
Evaluate it "sociologically". Do so using valid methods. The outcome is the same.
"Does not mass murder" is not part of the dictionary definition of Christianity or any other religion I know about, so claiming it is is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy.
It's one of the Ten Commandments. There is nothing more definitional as to what Christianity is, and is not. That these are not listed in a dictionary definition is, for any intellectually-honest person, simply a question of the economy of presentation of a dictionary, as "communism" would not include more than a couple lines descriptive of the ideology of Marx and Engels (et al), yet a wider set of principles would be quite unambiguously part of the meaning of "communism". If you want to make such a semantic argument, may I suggest a better one.
Your application of psychic powers on how I "just want to make young atheists feel bad" aside...
Regardless of one's worldview, two things must exist to have any possibility of reaching its supposed objectives.
1. The objectives must be -logically supportable- by the underlying principles.
2. The practitioner must be consistent with those principles and objectives.
All I've seen here is pointing out cases of failure of historical Christianity to fully implement 2), as a finger-pointing, hypocritical, you-can't-criticize-me-because-I-have-no-actual-specific-content exercise in futility.
In the face of direct questions, the advocates of atheism here have utterly defaulted on the first requirement, and merely implied-by-accusation a better record on 2), in the face of cited fact. There is no logical connection between the claimed objectives and benefits and the content of the worldview. By design, I'd say, because there is no actual intent to follow through on any principles at all--but I leave that to your evaluation. Toward that evaluation, any evidence at all, either logical or statistical, of atheism's supposed preferability would be useful, and so far, as expected, completely evaded.
First off, you are mistaking all atheists for "Darwinian Naturalists". That's just grossly offensive.
In-line with Darwinian principles, I'll ask, "Who cares?" Do you have a reason anyone should care?
Christians murder in the name of their God. Entire civilizations have been wiped out by competing religions. Does that mean that religion is no better than atheism?
No, it doesn't mean that. A better question is by what standard are you suggesting it could be worse than atheism? Do you have the stats on the resulting DNA and meme-propagation rates of that versus not killing, so that I could evaluate it from -your- perspective?
Entire civilizations have been wiped out by competing religions.
So, what are you blaming this ongoing fact of reality on -before religion existed-? Again, that someone claims to be acting on the principles of the religion does not mean they actually are. Defining a group by the precise opposite of their definitional objectives is not useful for any purpose.
Especially not after arrogantly trying to equate the lack of belief in a God with the policies of a former communist mass-murderer.
What do you mean "trying"? It's done. The country was formally atheist formally pursuing an atheistic agenda, a direct test performed at large-scale, and we know the results. That outcome is what there is evidence for. Do you expect your philosophical views to have evidence?
Will you next try to tell me that since certain passages in the Bible condone murder of certain types of people, I will not be able to control my "religious impulses" and will go out and murder people?
Cite. And do not cite the legal system or warfare. Those are, by definition, not murder. Killing your own citizens to expand your clique's political power, that -is- murder.
Many current religious sects are more than happy to prove that to you first-hand.
Name some. Preferably, while not pretending that the opposite of the religion represents the religion, and without the absurdity of characterizing a huge array of discrete worldviews by statistical outliers.
I got death threats from Christians for being an atheist.
No, you didn't.
Where are those "peaceful Christians" that you're talking about, and more to the point, where have they been hiding in the previous two millennia?
They aren't hiding. I'm here, and they've been present throughout those two millenia. Doing activities you'd expect if you dropped your selective focus, like preserving the existence of science via the monasteries--since the charitable work you can't avoid being aware of, merely by reading the names of hospitals and other institutions, are apparently not of interest to you.
Rather than go down the road of noting that the Crusades are directly contrary to Christianity per its definition, and therefore -not Christian-, would you like to avoid context-dropping (yes, I know you learned the "my nonexistent, nondefined context is better" game from Dawkins) and compare to the behavior of the Roman Empire?
You have no idea what the word "Darwinian" means.
I knew perfectly well what it means. Nice, if totally content-free, try.
I presented no logical fallacies. The reason appropriate relative association between the actions and the worldview is that mass-killing is -directly contrary- to the principles of Christianity, and therefore, by definition, -not Christianity-.
By contrast, mass-killing is -directly compatible- with Darwinian Naturalism, by reference to what it -is-, rather than by the standard rhetorical references to what Christianity -is not-, definitionally, as representative. The question remains open as to in what respect Darwinian Naturalism is incompatible with mass-killing if that's the optimal DNA-propagation strategy for a given context.
Agreed, people fail in remaining consistent with their claimed worldview, both theist and atheist alike. That is not the issue, nor is that a productive point for either side. The issue is what does the worldview logically support arguments -for-, and -against-. We are here to evaluate the worldviews qua worldviews, anything else is useless. Formally defining an entire society as atheistic, stating as a formal goal the elimination of religion, and ending up in mass-killings of both atheists and theists, for the objective, in actuality, of (who would have guessed) social power, and power perfectly consonant with Darwinian expectations, could not have provided us with a better test-case of the philosophy, as -actually applied-. We have that test case, as historical fact rather than Dawkins' fanciful musings, and you cannot evade the evidence.
Though, granted, "guilt by association" strategies are, as usual, absolutely essential to your stance, I must admit at this point yours are far too tenuous for me to even try to give credence too.
The moon was around at the time too. Perhaps that was a core sociopolitical factor. If you see a differentiation of your stance from the ideological influence of the moon, provide some evidence.
You are wrong. Just because theists like to repeat the BS that atheism (meaning the "absence of belief" in God) had something to do with Stalin's actions, doesn't make it true. A more valid argument is that Stalin's brand of communism was essentially a religion...
Ludicrous. It not merely had "something to do with", it was a -formally defined goal-. If you find your silly semantic characterization of non-religion as religion (a stance I'm sure you'll immediately reverse yourself on if it's suggested that "atheism is a religion" by a theist), "in cases of there being bad stuff", carry on, though. The thread topically could use a clear actual example of self-delusion, true.
No revisionism here at all. After starting with the very first sentence in the above link (and the provided references), I'd check the label on your Kool-Aid, actually.
Review history. The "us" you speak of was the German State, not a particular religious affiliation. His arguments against Jews were not religious, they were based on genetic racial pseudoscience.
On the other hand, I'd by happy to play Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon with you any day. You're clearly very experienced in it.
Review the defined worldview of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a political entity, and the millions of people killed, internally and externally, by it, to correct your error.
Can you provide ONE example of his Bigotry? I can name thousands of example how Religions around the world are Bigots to non-believers!
Calling all religious believers "delusional" by definition, meets your criteria fully.
As for "beheading", can you name something within Darwinian Naturalism that argues against it, if it increases the propagation of the behead-ers DNA? Stalin certainly didn't see that reason for restraint that isn't there, and you can easily google millions of examples of his own citizens, believers and atheists alike, killed by this formally-atheistic state. How much of Dawkins' non-correspondence to this demonstrable history of an actual large-scale test case, rather than a fantasy utopian atheist projection, is due not to the fact he -wouldn't-,,but rather -can't-, seems like a germane question. As is the reality of existence before any religion existed to blame--it would have been an ongoing intertribal bloodbath that is the very reason offered for why we exist in our current form and capabilities. Most of these projections against religion, are, simply, an "Argument from the Never-existed" fallacy that doesn't even propose to offer hard metrics, such as statistics, for -relative- comparison on what is a -relative- normative question. Understandably so, since the atheist worldview would lose immediately and overwhelmingly if we introduced actual hard data, simply by reference to the 20'th Century alone.
Hitler directed his Nazi propaganda apparatus to find a way to, in effect, replace "Christmas" with "Hitler Day". This objective is not indicative of a genuine Christian belief.
As is common with politicians, what one claims to believe, and what one actually believes, are often quite discrete.
Slashdot Mirror
I am sure that Mr. Dawkins would consider you getting him some more book-cash by buying his anti-theism book, to be a fully acceptable alternative to the listed activities.
Incidentally, when are we going to stop pretending that this is a question of "anti-evolution"? He doesn't get said book-cash from presenting evolution, he gets it by attacking religion--even with this new tone of playing the victim.
The clever equivocation of using "evolution" to mean not "evolutionary processes occur" (which most theists agree with anyway, including myself and, say, the entire Catholic Church), but rather the untestable, unscientific position of, essentially, "only evolution occurs" as a causal factor in human origins, I do have to give him kudos for, though. Nice way to set up the False Dichotomy of "science versus religion", even if the "science" presented isn't actually science, but rather an untestable inference in the domain of philosophy.
...and you don't seem amenable to reason in your other posts...
Tell me something that at least -one- of us believes you actually believe.
Every religion thinks their translation and interpretation is correct.
And what do you conclude from this? "None of them is correct" is not a logically valid conclusion, by the way.
You obviously also believe you have the correct interpretation. That's amusing.
How so? It's a daily circumstance in every branch of science.
Care to share with us your One True Interpretation (and translation)?
Sure. Just not here. There's too much content to do it exhaustively. More like something to be done when we (or whoever you'll be providing as a proxy) have lots of time...
Slavery still ok?
For all cases without the possibility of a free-enterprise system and 401K plans, say, due to it being impossible to be there due to 2000 years of necessary human history preceding these, where it is the necessary means of survival of the population and, where there are extensive rules for treatment of such "slaves" (better than most HR departments specify for modern wage-slaves, actually)... absolutely.
How should women be treated?
They should be theologically further teaching highly-informed men, like Acts 18:26 says. Knowledge over all, disregarding the usual deliberate misrepresentation of Paul.
If you're not 100% literal in every reading of every passage, how do you determine which passage is to be interpreted in which way?
Same as you do with any book. Get good with understanding context.
You realize, of course, that -my- having the One True Interpretation, logically, says nothing about whether or not it exists, and you suggesting otherwise is a complete non-sequitur, though, correct? Personally, I expect my understanding to become more exhaustive and more refined even into the afterlife. Is there any problem with holding that view, much as we don't ever purport to be "done with science"? No, naturally, as you already know as you suggest otherwise.
I wouldn't have taken you as an advocate of Intelligent Design. But there it is, right in your own words.
Christianity is actually rather nebulous
From your perspective, I'm sure that's true. Much as, knowing little about Japanese politics, I could not hope to differentiate the supportable stances from the nonsupportable ones. You not bothering to understand the subject matter, though, does not mean that a correct understanding is not to be found.
Still, on balance, not nearly the number of "schisms" and discrete positions as, say, science.
Definitions of "Christian" are just as open to interpretation as the underlying religious texts. Go ask some southern baptists if Mormons and Catholics are Christians.
That is to say, open to interpretation very little. That multiple interpretations are claimed, does not mean that multiple interpretations are valid. You argument is no more sensible than to say that if I interpret Quantum Mechanics outside of of anything related to the mainline Interpretations (e.g. Copenhagen, Everett), that my interpretation is equally true, or the mainline Interpretations equally false. No. You are making an Argument From Ignorance here, based on your -personal- knowledge, which is hardly remotely definitive. Regardless, even in total there is nowhere near the variance in views as suggested by your "Scotsman" objection. The defining documentation (i.e. "the bible") allows for little variance on a topic-by-topic basis, unless one is simply ignoring the text. That scenario, however common it may be, is irrelevant to the issue.
Your defence of Christianity would be more coherent if you acknowledged that violence is a direct result of moralism.
Sorry, I can't acknowledge the completely absurd. Can you give me some statistics showing that violent felons are mainly incarcerated for "moralism"?
Perhaps how historical wars were started by people being "too moral"?
How about the entire history of evolution, for which you, according to you yourself, owe the ability to even cognitively form and make such a claim? Biological forms killing other biological forms was driven not by resource competition, but because of a desire to be "too moral"?
Self-contradictory arguments are dismissable. Arguments so self-contradictory they contradict -the existence of the arguer himself-, are just amusing.
Lie on. You are charged with advocating Christianity in the face of opposition, by Christ himself.
Don't blame me for your failure on that point, nor for your failure in wishing that being right is altered, not by a logical argument on your part, but merely by calling what's right "self-righteous".
Because people caring whether they offend other beings seems to follow logically and obviously from "survival of the fittest" (making enemies makes you and your offspring less likely to survive).
It could, in certain situations. Alternately, one might take the viewpoint that the two seconds needed to listen to the "that's offensive" objection is two seconds of unneeded inefficiency, and simply wipe out the speaker and his entire culture. The only means you have to differentiate the two proposals of correctness, is which was more successful in DNA propagation (or, at minimum, you have provided and demonstrated validity for no other means). By those standards there is not the least reason to object to the latter if the context is such that it, in fact, worked by that DNA-success criteria. In short, it addresses no normative or ethical question at all--for any given proposal, the exact opposite can be proposed, and if we actually follow up to evaluate the alternatives by that worldview, it rapidly becomes an inane question of projected and assumed "survival success". The fundamental philosophical problem here, though, is that the worldview of Darwinian Naturalism -needs the opposition to reject its standards-, and -needs the opposition to retain its own standards, while simultaneously attacking them-. In the wider cultural conflict between theism and atheism, application of -your- position would be to simply note we are the numerically-dominant subculture, and should feel no constraint, by -your own- standards, in taking yours out entirely, and sooner rather than later. You count on this not happening, and rather for us to continue to behave with Christian behavioral norms as you reject and attack them. This is what makes your position fundamentally unsound as a proposed objective (applicable to all) worldview.
In other words, you can't refute critique of religion just by declaring all critique-worthy people "not really religious".
Do you prefer that I refute your critique on the basis that, regardless of what the worldview is, your evaluation is such that whatever is numerically more prevalent in the population automatically "loses", as a simple matter of generating more statistical opportunities for what you see (though don't formally support) as "negative" occurrences? If you have statistical backing for the notion that -per capita- atheism leads to better outcomes (by some standard) than religion, then present it. Notably, this is assiduously avoided--we have finger-pointing anecdotes as the limit of what advocates of atheism are willing to present that could be of -scientific- value. And, understandably so, as the outcome of such an analysis is already clear simply by our USSR test-case alone.
Evaluate it "sociologically". Do so using valid methods. The outcome is the same.
"Does not mass murder" is not part of the dictionary definition of Christianity or any other religion I know about, so claiming it is is a classic No True Scotsman fallacy.
It's one of the Ten Commandments. There is nothing more definitional as to what Christianity is, and is not. That these are not listed in a dictionary definition is, for any intellectually-honest person, simply a question of the economy of presentation of a dictionary, as "communism" would not include more than a couple lines descriptive of the ideology of Marx and Engels (et al), yet a wider set of principles would be quite unambiguously part of the meaning of "communism". If you want to make such a semantic argument, may I suggest a better one.
Your application of psychic powers on how I "just want to make young atheists feel bad" aside...
Regardless of one's worldview, two things must exist to have any possibility of reaching its supposed objectives.
1. The objectives must be -logically supportable- by the underlying principles.
2. The practitioner must be consistent with those principles and objectives.
All I've seen here is pointing out cases of failure of historical Christianity to fully implement 2), as a finger-pointing, hypocritical, you-can't-criticize-me-because-I-have-no-actual-specific-content exercise in futility.
In the face of direct questions, the advocates of atheism here have utterly defaulted on the first requirement, and merely implied-by-accusation a better record on 2), in the face of cited fact. There is no logical connection between the claimed objectives and benefits and the content of the worldview. By design, I'd say, because there is no actual intent to follow through on any principles at all--but I leave that to your evaluation. Toward that evaluation, any evidence at all, either logical or statistical, of atheism's supposed preferability would be useful, and so far, as expected, completely evaded.
You're making us all look bad
Go away. Were you actually Christian, you'd know there is only one opinion that matters in terms of "looking bad". Step up, coward.
First off, you are mistaking all atheists for "Darwinian Naturalists". That's just grossly offensive.
In-line with Darwinian principles, I'll ask, "Who cares?" Do you have a reason anyone should care?
Christians murder in the name of their God. Entire civilizations have been wiped out by competing religions. Does that mean that religion is no better than atheism?
No, it doesn't mean that. A better question is by what standard are you suggesting it could be worse than atheism? Do you have the stats on the resulting DNA and meme-propagation rates of that versus not killing, so that I could evaluate it from -your- perspective?
Entire civilizations have been wiped out by competing religions.
So, what are you blaming this ongoing fact of reality on -before religion existed-? Again, that someone claims to be acting on the principles of the religion does not mean they actually are. Defining a group by the precise opposite of their definitional objectives is not useful for any purpose.
Especially not after arrogantly trying to equate the lack of belief in a God with the policies of a former communist mass-murderer.
What do you mean "trying"? It's done. The country was formally atheist formally pursuing an atheistic agenda, a direct test performed at large-scale, and we know the results. That outcome is what there is evidence for. Do you expect your philosophical views to have evidence?
Will you next try to tell me that since certain passages in the Bible condone murder of certain types of people, I will not be able to control my "religious impulses" and will go out and murder people?
Cite. And do not cite the legal system or warfare. Those are, by definition, not murder. Killing your own citizens to expand your clique's political power, that -is- murder.
Many current religious sects are more than happy to prove that to you first-hand.
Name some. Preferably, while not pretending that the opposite of the religion represents the religion, and without the absurdity of characterizing a huge array of discrete worldviews by statistical outliers.
I got death threats from Christians for being an atheist.
No, you didn't.
Where are those "peaceful Christians" that you're talking about, and more to the point, where have they been hiding in the previous two millennia?
They aren't hiding. I'm here, and they've been present throughout those two millenia. Doing activities you'd expect if you dropped your selective focus, like preserving the existence of science via the monasteries--since the charitable work you can't avoid being aware of, merely by reading the names of hospitals and other institutions, are apparently not of interest to you.
Rather than go down the road of noting that the Crusades are directly contrary to Christianity per its definition, and therefore -not Christian-, would you like to avoid context-dropping (yes, I know you learned the "my nonexistent, nondefined context is better" game from Dawkins) and compare to the behavior of the Roman Empire?
You have no idea what the word "Darwinian" means.
I knew perfectly well what it means. Nice, if totally content-free, try.
I presented no logical fallacies. The reason appropriate relative association between the actions and the worldview is that mass-killing is -directly contrary- to the principles of Christianity, and therefore, by definition, -not Christianity-.
By contrast, mass-killing is -directly compatible- with Darwinian Naturalism, by reference to what it -is-, rather than by the standard rhetorical references to what Christianity -is not-, definitionally, as representative. The question remains open as to in what respect Darwinian Naturalism is incompatible with mass-killing if that's the optimal DNA-propagation strategy for a given context.
Agreed, people fail in remaining consistent with their claimed worldview, both theist and atheist alike. That is not the issue, nor is that a productive point for either side. The issue is what does the worldview logically support arguments -for-, and -against-. We are here to evaluate the worldviews qua worldviews, anything else is useless. Formally defining an entire society as atheistic, stating as a formal goal the elimination of religion, and ending up in mass-killings of both atheists and theists, for the objective, in actuality, of (who would have guessed) social power, and power perfectly consonant with Darwinian expectations, could not have provided us with a better test-case of the philosophy, as -actually applied-. We have that test case, as historical fact rather than Dawkins' fanciful musings, and you cannot evade the evidence.
No questions on your absurdity, no.
Though, granted, "guilt by association" strategies are, as usual, absolutely essential to your stance, I must admit at this point yours are far too tenuous for me to even try to give credence too.
The moon was around at the time too. Perhaps that was a core sociopolitical factor. If you see a differentiation of your stance from the ideological influence of the moon, provide some evidence.
You are wrong. Just because theists like to repeat the BS that atheism (meaning the "absence of belief" in God) had something to do with Stalin's actions, doesn't make it true. A more valid argument is that Stalin's brand of communism was essentially a religion...
Ludicrous. It not merely had "something to do with", it was a -formally defined goal-. If you find your silly semantic characterization of non-religion as religion (a stance I'm sure you'll immediately reverse yourself on if it's suggested that "atheism is a religion" by a theist), "in cases of there being bad stuff", carry on, though. The thread topically could use a clear actual example of self-delusion, true.
Though you did succeed in creating deep existential angst in me that I may be unable to read, I'll provide the same link to you as I did previously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
Yes, in fact, people -do- kill "in the name of atheism", provably, as a matter of simple historical fact, and do so by the millions.
No.
His actions exposed his values and philosophy. As usual.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union
No revisionism here at all. After starting with the very first sentence in the above link (and the provided references), I'd check the label on your Kool-Aid, actually.
Review history. The "us" you speak of was the German State, not a particular religious affiliation. His arguments against Jews were not religious, they were based on genetic racial pseudoscience.
On the other hand, I'd by happy to play Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon with you any day. You're clearly very experienced in it.
No, you are simply wrong about factual history.
Review the defined worldview of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a political entity, and the millions of people killed, internally and externally, by it, to correct your error.
The problem with this objection, in contrast to where it actually applies, is that Christianity actually has specific documented definition and norms.
That there is debate regarding particular points, does not make it an analogous "Scotsman" context any more than it would for physics.
Can you provide ONE example of his Bigotry? I can name thousands of example how Religions around the world are Bigots to non-believers!
Calling all religious believers "delusional" by definition, meets your criteria fully.
As for "beheading", can you name something within Darwinian Naturalism that argues against it, if it increases the propagation of the behead-ers DNA? Stalin certainly didn't see that reason for restraint that isn't there, and you can easily google millions of examples of his own citizens, believers and atheists alike, killed by this formally-atheistic state. How much of Dawkins' non-correspondence to this demonstrable history of an actual large-scale test case, rather than a fantasy utopian atheist projection, is due not to the fact he -wouldn't-,,but rather -can't-, seems like a germane question. As is the reality of existence before any religion existed to blame--it would have been an ongoing intertribal bloodbath that is the very reason offered for why we exist in our current form and capabilities. Most of these projections against religion, are, simply, an "Argument from the Never-existed" fallacy that doesn't even propose to offer hard metrics, such as statistics, for -relative- comparison on what is a -relative- normative question. Understandably so, since the atheist worldview would lose immediately and overwhelmingly if we introduced actual hard data, simply by reference to the 20'th Century alone.
Hitler directed his Nazi propaganda apparatus to find a way to, in effect, replace "Christmas" with "Hitler Day". This objective is not indicative of a genuine Christian belief.
As is common with politicians, what one claims to believe, and what one actually believes, are often quite discrete.
...Tracy Kidder's Pulitzer winner -reads- like good fiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine
In terms of "dramatizing math", I'd have to give it the nod even over Cryptonomicon.