When have I ever claimed to be a font of knowledge on Islam?
Another baseless claim, as is your one about Choudary, as far as the evidence would suggest.
Are we back to your mate in Belmarsh, again?
question for athiests
- Thread starter thefanwithnoname
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
When have I ever claimed to be a font of knowledge on Islam?
Another baseless claim, as is your one about Choudary, as far as the evidence would suggest.
Are we back to your mate in Belmarsh, again?
Stalin didn't kill people to advance the cause of atheism, though.
Hitler thought that he was doing god's work, on the other hand.
People don't kill because of their atheism.
People do kill because of their theism.
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."
it seemed you challenged my assertion that you knew nothing about Islam
you refuse the chance to clarify from the source. so no substance in your assertions or suggestions
nah your lack of it in your beliefs/assertions
There's a substantial difference between knowing something about a subject and being a font of knowledge on it.
I have no reason to believe that the source would clarify anything, as he's had numerous opportunities to do so and has spurned them.
Yes, I believe he was. Do you have evidence that he was a fundamentalist atheist?
more assumptions or do yo know this to be true?
Hitler also believed in natural selection and by some accounts planned to destroy christianity after the war
like stalin and the churches he said certain things in public to gain popularity/support
Napolean
geoffry dahmer
etc arguebly killed fot their beliefs as did Jim Jones
arguably mussolini, mao zedong
you clearly know very little of Islam!
So you ask me instead?
as explained only to the media, and i provided assurance
as I said lack of conviction in belief!
Stalin ordered purges within the Soviet Union of any person deemed to be an enemy of the state (i.e. capitalists, theists). In total, estimates of the total number murdered under Stalin’s reign, range from 10 million to 60 million. His government promoted atheism with mass propaganda in school, and held a terror campaign against the religious. He crushed the Russian Orthodox Church, leveling thousands of churches and shooting more than 100,000 priests, monks and nuns between 1937 and 1938.
does this fit the fundmentlist concept?
I would go as far as to summise that the numbers are inaccurate based on the background of those in power. although how religious some were is open to debate
For example, if Richard Dawkins was to become the leader of a country what he calls 'passion' would manifest itself in a hitleresque way.
just my opinion mind
For example, if Richard Dawkins was to become the leader of a country what he calls 'passion' would manifest itself in a hitleresque way.
just my opinion mind
I thought the thread was about “prove in words I can understand how science guys have sussed the beginnings of the universes or my “god of the gaps” default assumption will be the only valid one – a magic, eternal sky fairy that needs no creator caused the necessary creation”.
What can possibly be the definition of a “fundamentalist atheist”??? Athiesm is simply a lack of belief in deities. It has no ideological reach that gives a sense of worldview and political and economic prescriptions to reach a specific goal.
As NotPoll said: atheists can be bad people like anyone else, but a good one wont be compelled to do bad things through atheism. For good people to do bad things you need religion.
FanWith makes a reasonable point if you see the world through religious brainwashing (especially one as daft as Islam): Stalin was, as far as we can tell, both an atheist and an anticlericalist. But it was his anticlericalism (along obviously with the quasi-religious goal of the Marxist-Leninist state based on a demented view of human nature) and not his atheism which led him to genocidal attacks on religious communities (amongst others). The simple belief that there are no gods does not have sufficient inspirational power to make any human being commit acts of genocide - there is no logical path whatsoever from the premise "no gods" on its own to the conclusion "I must kill all those who believe otherwise". In order to reach this conclusion one needs additional beliefs alongside their atheism, generally along the lines of either -
a) believing in gods is so incredibly harmful to the believer and the society in which he lives that the mere presence of beleivers is a tremendous risk to societal stability.
b) belief in gods is so difficult to eradicate or render harmless with rational argument and peaceful means that the only way to neutralise the threat it poses is through terminal violence.
c) the rights of the individual are less important than the rights of the society to which he belongs.
or
a) Religious belief is a powerful psychological tool for building in-group loyalty and creating power bases from which to challenge the ruling power.
b) My political and ideological leanings are accurate, correct, superior to all others, beyond doubt and must be put into practice irrespective of whether any evidence turns up to the contrary.
c) The enaction of my political ideology is hindered by the presence of religious power bases promoting alternative ideologies.
d) The value to society of enacting my political ideology is greater than the cost in lives and suffering of removing any obstacles to its enaction.
Stalin was very much of the latter type. The important point is that none of these additional factors logically stem from simple non-belief in deities. Belief in the right kind of deities on the other hand can give you a direct line to any or all of them.
You might say "yes, but Stalin's anticlericalism stems directly from his atheism". This is not the case - atheism is not even a precondition for anticlericalism. Calvin and Luther were extremely anticlerical, but neither was an atheist. Henry VIII and Mohammed were fiercely anticlerical, but neither was an atheist. All four of these men simply wanted to replace the established power structures with their own power structures, and to stifle the growth of alternative power structures that might topple their authority in turn - it's a matter of political expediency. Very large numbers of the population of Sweden and similar numbers of the Japanese are atheists, but both countries are extremely respectful of their ancient religious power structures. There is simply no correlation whatsoever between atheism and anticlericalism, and no logical link from one to the other.
So when Stalin tortured and killed religious believers he did so primarily because they were potential supporters for rival political factions - doubly so given the sacrad nature of the Tzars and the religious character of the old regime which promised a nostalgic return to the good old days. The Tzars ruled as demi-gods and the communist exploited this attitude in their largely illiterate population.
What can possibly be the definition of a “fundamentalist atheist”??? Athiesm is simply a lack of belief in deities. It has no ideological reach that gives a sense of worldview and political and economic prescriptions to reach a specific goal.
As NotPoll said: atheists can be bad people like anyone else, but a good one wont be compelled to do bad things through atheism. For good people to do bad things you need religion.
FanWith makes a reasonable point if you see the world through religious brainwashing (especially one as daft as Islam): Stalin was, as far as we can tell, both an atheist and an anticlericalist. But it was his anticlericalism (along obviously with the quasi-religious goal of the Marxist-Leninist state based on a demented view of human nature) and not his atheism which led him to genocidal attacks on religious communities (amongst others). The simple belief that there are no gods does not have sufficient inspirational power to make any human being commit acts of genocide - there is no logical path whatsoever from the premise "no gods" on its own to the conclusion "I must kill all those who believe otherwise". In order to reach this conclusion one needs additional beliefs alongside their atheism, generally along the lines of either -
a) believing in gods is so incredibly harmful to the believer and the society in which he lives that the mere presence of beleivers is a tremendous risk to societal stability.
b) belief in gods is so difficult to eradicate or render harmless with rational argument and peaceful means that the only way to neutralise the threat it poses is through terminal violence.
c) the rights of the individual are less important than the rights of the society to which he belongs.
or
a) Religious belief is a powerful psychological tool for building in-group loyalty and creating power bases from which to challenge the ruling power.
b) My political and ideological leanings are accurate, correct, superior to all others, beyond doubt and must be put into practice irrespective of whether any evidence turns up to the contrary.
c) The enaction of my political ideology is hindered by the presence of religious power bases promoting alternative ideologies.
d) The value to society of enacting my political ideology is greater than the cost in lives and suffering of removing any obstacles to its enaction.
Stalin was very much of the latter type. The important point is that none of these additional factors logically stem from simple non-belief in deities. Belief in the right kind of deities on the other hand can give you a direct line to any or all of them.
You might say "yes, but Stalin's anticlericalism stems directly from his atheism". This is not the case - atheism is not even a precondition for anticlericalism. Calvin and Luther were extremely anticlerical, but neither was an atheist. Henry VIII and Mohammed were fiercely anticlerical, but neither was an atheist. All four of these men simply wanted to replace the established power structures with their own power structures, and to stifle the growth of alternative power structures that might topple their authority in turn - it's a matter of political expediency. Very large numbers of the population of Sweden and similar numbers of the Japanese are atheists, but both countries are extremely respectful of their ancient religious power structures. There is simply no correlation whatsoever between atheism and anticlericalism, and no logical link from one to the other.
So when Stalin tortured and killed religious believers he did so primarily because they were potential supporters for rival political factions - doubly so given the sacrad nature of the Tzars and the religious character of the old regime which promised a nostalgic return to the good old days. The Tzars ruled as demi-gods and the communist exploited this attitude in their largely illiterate population.
This thread has to die!
Thefanwithnobrain is clearly on a mission (possibly by his creator) to drive everyone on not606 general chat to the very edge of insanity then push us over. No one could be that stupid and stubborn without doing so intentionally. Could they?
Ignoring facts, ignoring points that he has no answer for, ignoring points which he doesn't understand (ie, most of them), talking about things which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, using bizarre and illogical evidence to "prove" his own claims, completely misunderstanding even the most basic of points on subjects ranging from cosmology to evolution etc.
This is a man who throughout this thread has demanded proof that dinosaurs had sex, has claimed (without any proof) that there must be a creator of all things and calls anyone who doesn't believe in god an anti-god without any sense of irony whatsoever.
Even more bizarrely he uses "proof" provided to him as evidence to back up his own claim even when it does the exact opposite (the evolution of the eye for example.)
He is either an utterly brilliant WUM or a completely ****ed up moron but whatever he is continuing to argue with him is a complete and utter waste of time.
Thefanwithnobrain is clearly on a mission (possibly by his creator) to drive everyone on not606 general chat to the very edge of insanity then push us over. No one could be that stupid and stubborn without doing so intentionally. Could they?
Ignoring facts, ignoring points that he has no answer for, ignoring points which he doesn't understand (ie, most of them), talking about things which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, using bizarre and illogical evidence to "prove" his own claims, completely misunderstanding even the most basic of points on subjects ranging from cosmology to evolution etc.
This is a man who throughout this thread has demanded proof that dinosaurs had sex, has claimed (without any proof) that there must be a creator of all things and calls anyone who doesn't believe in god an anti-god without any sense of irony whatsoever.
Even more bizarrely he uses "proof" provided to him as evidence to back up his own claim even when it does the exact opposite (the evolution of the eye for example.)
He is either an utterly brilliant WUM or a completely ****ed up moron but whatever he is continuing to argue with him is a complete and utter waste of time.
As someone relatively new to this atheism stuff, I'm going to go with this:
I have no idea how time began, where the universe came from or what caused it to be.
Atheism, by definition, means 'the rejection of the belief in all gods'. This is crucial. It does not mean 'a system of belief which answers every question the universe poses'. This definition could in fact be more appropriately ascribed to many religions.
As a result, therefore, it is entirely reasonable to go for the statement 'I don't know' and that be satisfactory. Atheists would not argue 'science has a better suggestion for how time began' (we'll stick to the existence of the universe, not what happened directly after that or any other issues), but simply that the suggestion offered by religion is not plausible.
Atheism claims a need for evidence to form beliefs. Religion does one of two things:
1) Claims no need of evidence to form beliefs. For a logician, this seems ridiculous - and on that basis, that no evidence is required, surely a belief in no god is as valid as a belief in god?
2) Claims to see evidence in actions or objects found which can be ascribed to god, such as altruism or 'miracles' etc. This is one argument which can never be shot down by atheists, but will also never be believed by them as this relies on the opinion of the observer - an atheist will never see evidence of 'god's work', just as a religious person often will - it is entirely subjective.
My point is simply that atheism does not need to form theories. Completely separate from science, atheism is the concept that better theories with more reasonable evidence based logic are required to form a belief in God. Atheism, by definition therefore, does not have theories of its own. Not believing in something does not require proof. If I claimed that I was stood on a giant tortoise, it would be up to me to prove I was, not up to you to prove I’m not – it would be entirely reasonable for you not to believe me without evidence.
I have no idea how time began, where the universe came from or what caused it to be.
Atheism, by definition, means 'the rejection of the belief in all gods'. This is crucial. It does not mean 'a system of belief which answers every question the universe poses'. This definition could in fact be more appropriately ascribed to many religions.
As a result, therefore, it is entirely reasonable to go for the statement 'I don't know' and that be satisfactory. Atheists would not argue 'science has a better suggestion for how time began' (we'll stick to the existence of the universe, not what happened directly after that or any other issues), but simply that the suggestion offered by religion is not plausible.
Atheism claims a need for evidence to form beliefs. Religion does one of two things:
1) Claims no need of evidence to form beliefs. For a logician, this seems ridiculous - and on that basis, that no evidence is required, surely a belief in no god is as valid as a belief in god?
2) Claims to see evidence in actions or objects found which can be ascribed to god, such as altruism or 'miracles' etc. This is one argument which can never be shot down by atheists, but will also never be believed by them as this relies on the opinion of the observer - an atheist will never see evidence of 'god's work', just as a religious person often will - it is entirely subjective.
My point is simply that atheism does not need to form theories. Completely separate from science, atheism is the concept that better theories with more reasonable evidence based logic are required to form a belief in God. Atheism, by definition therefore, does not have theories of its own. Not believing in something does not require proof. If I claimed that I was stood on a giant tortoise, it would be up to me to prove I was, not up to you to prove I’m not – it would be entirely reasonable for you not to believe me without evidence.
Haha I just only read the first page of this thread then posted that reply. It seems to me I've missed a mere 61 pages off debate - sorry if that sounded off topic!
Don't worry - you haven't missed much! Just picture a lot of people banging their heads against a brick wall and you'll have caught up.
TFWNN much like Chowdary are Cointel pros, manufactured from the CIA and British secret service to shape popular opinion through mainstream media ......
Actually your post is very accurate and pretty concise.
It's a shame that it will be wasted upon some people, unfortunately.
