Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

There are those that have no faith who commit evil. Because some of those sick "you know whats" that profess faith and do these evil things don't really believe in what they preach. Now, I'm not sure if I want to label them atheist. Why? Because most of the atheists I know don't commit such evil crimes in the name of atheism. Also, most atheists don't place themselves at a higher position than their "followers." I'm not sure if I can use the word follower with atheist. While I am not an atheist I sure do respect a lot of atheists. Being good doesn't equate to being faithful and visa versa.

I bet you can't tell I'm upset about the whole sex scandal stuff lately? It is a shame.
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
. . . Well, I searched, I tried. I can't find any. Don't get me wrong: I am certain they exist. I just can't find 'em on the interweb. I am certain someone will help out with a few.



It's simple, if atheists do drugs, rape boys, and are just generally louses, no one cares. The media won't report it and it don't make good headlines. Preachers on the other hand......
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptik:
. . . Well, I searched, I tried. I can't find any. Don't get me wrong: I am certain they exist. I just can't find 'em on the interweb. I am certain someone will help out with a few.


Listen, I heard DeepFat and 8I have been investigating to see if fineazell is really fine. They SAID it was on behalf of our friend e, but e has been mysteriously missing for some time (Where the heck is that woman? I miss her!). So, are you thinking what I'm thinking? Big Grin
quote:
There are those that have no faith who commit evil. Because some of those sick "you know whats" that profess faith and do these evil things don't really believe in what they preach. Now, I'm not sure if I want to label them atheist. Why? Because most of the atheists I know don't commit such evil crimes in the name of atheism. Also, most atheists don't place themselves at a higher position than their "followers." I'm not sure if I can use the word follower with atheist. While I am not an atheist I sure do respect a lot of atheists. Being good doesn't equate to being faithful and visa versa.



Alabama, you're my new hero. A believer that understands the concept of atheism is so very rare. Good words bud.
You didn't look very hard, Skeptic ---> Link

I'd add a wink or a smiley, but after reading those stories, no can do. Of course, I know that you'd never do something like that just because you are an Atheist, just as I know I wouldn't participate in whatever scandal some Christian participated in just because I'm a Christian.
quote:
You didn't look very hard, Skeptic


Good find. "Mr. Waters, 53, is already serving 60 years for stealing $54,000 from Ms. O'Hair's atheist organization while he was her office manager."

Here is an interesting thingamagig that means nothing . . . Yet still does:

Googlefight.com allows you to let two different search terms fight each other to see what search terms have the most stories behind them. All this measures is how many times a certain word or phrase appears in Google's index.

A search of the phrase "atheist murderer" versus "christian murderer" come to ZERO versus 19.

A search for "atheist pedophile" versus "christian pedophile" comes up with ZERO to 5 (I expected much more than 5 but what-evah).

And, finally, "Atheist scandal" versus "Christian Scandal" comes to ZERO versus 40.

And "Joy" versus "Skeptik" comes to 167,000,000 versus 647,000. You killed me there. Ouch.

Completely unscientific, I know, but interesting nonetheless.
Skep
If someone does not have a religious affiliation, it is not mentioned. As you already know, the lack of an item is treated as non-existent vs the presence of an item.
We read: after strangling all the members of so and so church, police shot him.
We don't read: the atheist, having no church, strangled people in a mall.
here you go, enjoy. First page only.


Results 1 - 10 of about 904,000 for atheist man kills. (0.33 seconds)
Search Results

1.
Man kills himself after reading The God Delusion? « Looking up…
One thing atheists like to do is attack the Christian bible and pick it apart based on ... 3 Responses to “Man kills himself after reading The God Delusion? ...
joeusesamac.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/man-kills-himself-after-reading-the-god-delusion/ - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
2.
Lioness in zoo kills man who invoked God ::: UATH.org - Atheism in ...
KIEV (Reuters) - A man shouting that God would keep him safe was mauled to death by a lioness in Kiev zoo after he crept into the animal’s enclosure, ...
uath.org/english.php?news=63 - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
3.
irReligion.org » Blog Archive » Atheist Kills Wife - Stuffs Her ...
Jul 31, 2008 ... 6 Responses to “Atheist Kills Wife - Stuffs Her Body In Feezer”. CHERYL Says: ... assep purna mulyanto:it is not the man in the pictu ...
Link - 30k - Cached - Similar pages
4.
Islam : Saudi man kills daughter for converting to Christianity
4 posts - Last post: Aug 13, 2008
A forum for atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and even believers that wish to hangout and learn.
Link - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
5.
Uniform Velocity: My Atheism Is Not A Rejection Of Your God
However, put up against each other, religion beats atheism by several orders of magnitude in number of people killed. But that’s another story. ...
Link - 374k - Cached - Similar pages
6.
FINNISH ATHEIST KILLS 5 BOYS AND 2 GIRLS FOR ATHEISM - Topix
15 posts
I didn't need some invisible man in the sky to tell me this either. So no, it is not ok to link atheism with genocide. Stalin wanted power so he killed ...
Link - 79k - Cached - Similar pages
7.
Religion is Man-Made: Preacher kills wife, hides body in freezer
Aug 1, 2008 ... Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish. Top atheist 2008 ...
religionismanmade.blogspot.com/2008/08/preacher-kills-wife-hides-body-in.html - 91k - Cached - Similar pages
8.
Ages of the Spiritual Life - Google Books Result
by Paul Evdokimov, Michael Plekon, Alexis Vinogradov - 1998 - Religion - 263 pages
According to Sartre, man kills God in order to say: "I am, therefore God does not ... However, the impunity that every atheist enjoys during his earthly ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0881411752...
9.
Forumosa • View topic - Atheism kills!
9 posts - Last post: Nov 22, 2008
Re: Atheism kills! Post by Namahottie on Sat, 22 Nov 2008 3:34. One has to place the blame somewhere. Perhaps the young man wanted to test ...
Link - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
10.
Atheism Kills » Bill Muehlenberg’s CultureWatch
The secular attempt to create a ‘new man’ as in Marxism has time and again resulted in coercive ... The author of the article Atheism Kills, Muehlenberg, ...
Link - 54k - Cached - Similar pages
quote:
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,600 for Alabamason. (0.27 seconds)


I'm somebody now!

quote:
Nothing? Are you kidding? Page 73 - Johnson, Navin R.! I'm somebody now! Millions of people look at this book everyday! This is the kind of spontaneous publicity - your name in print - that makes people. I'm in print! Things are going to start happening to me now.
<the Sniper points to Navin's name in the phone book>
quote:
Well, LMM, apparently nobody wants to discuss Atheist scandals.


I'll be happy to. The problem is that what LMM posted is a bunch of stories concerning mostly religious people committing evil and not "scandals." Most of her examples were sourced from atheist websites. Some were stories of "secular" people doing evil which, again, isn't "scandalous." If you disagree, please pick one story for discussion and I'll be happy to explain.

Thus far, the only one that qualifies as a "atheist scandal" is the one you posted, Joy. Even that one is borderline since an "atheist" person is not (or should not) be presumed to be more or less moral than the average person.

There is something very scandalous about a priest who rapes a choirboy or a policeman robbing a bank. An atheist who does similarly is about as scandalous as a "brown haired person" doing the same thing. Can ya understand that?

scandal
Pronunciation: \ˈskan-dəl\
Function: noun

1 a: discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person b: conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another

2: loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety : disgrace

3 a: a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it b: a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality <a scandal to the profession>

4: malicious or defamatory gossip

5: indignation, chagrin, or bewilderment brought about by a flagrant violation of morality, propriety, or religious opinion
None of those atheist stories were as juicy as a slick televangelist getting caught with his breeches down for another man - especially when he's been railing against homosexuality for years.

The public is fascinated by plummeting preachers because we demand more from those who have chosen careers that put them in positions of power.
I think the only power they have exists in their minds and possibly a small portion of the population nutty enough to listen to them. They get press because, as you all have pointed out, it's a train wreck.

They have much less power than y'all give them credit for. I don't even watch television evangelist. Most make my skin crawl, to be honest.
quote:
Dawkins falls under the definition you provided for scandalous along with anyone who agrees with his extremist views


Well, I guess that is debatable. I put that firmly in a gray area.

I guess I can see that Dawkins might cause some reputations to be destroyed as he exposes fundamentalists as the minions of Satan that they are. Wink
While we are on the subject, here is one that LMM cited as a "scandal"

From Link

"Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion'"

"A New York man is linking the suicide of his 22-year-old son, a military veteran who had bright prospects in college, to the anti-Christian book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins after a college professor challenged the son to read it."
Joy,

It is hardly correct to accuse Dawkins of scandal. He is scrupulously honest, and sincere in his writings.

Now, if he had been caught sleeping with Ted Haggard, tearing up "Origin of Species" as some sort of weird fetish, ok, that would be a scandal.

Don't hold your breath for that.

Dawkins has his opinion that the world would be better off without religion, and the way to accomplish that is to demonstrate the delusional nature of the institution. He has his evidence for his point of view, and can defend it quite well.

Imagine no religion.

DF
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
Joy,

It is hardly correct to accuse Dawkins of scandal. He is scrupulously honest, and sincere in his writings.

Now, if he had been caught sleeping with Ted Haggard, tearing up "Origin of Species" as some sort of weird fetish, ok, that would be a scandal.

Don't hold your breath for that.

Dawkins has his opinion that the world would be better off without religion, and the way to accomplish that is to demonstrate the delusional nature of the institution. He has his evidence for his point of view, and can defend it quite well.

Imagine no religion.

DF


Deep,

“A world without religion”?

Why stop there ?

What about a world without laws?

Dawkins is a delusional madman.

I cannot believe you would post something this absurd.
rram,

Dawkins is not absurd, and believe I posted that.

People poofed into life from mud, talking snakes, indefinite generational curse from god, worldwide floods, 900 year old people, a man living in a fish, the sun standing still, a trumpet blowing down a fortress, virgin birth, walking on water, raising the dead, an infinity of suffering for all but a chosen few from a loving god, ghosts and spirits and demons and possessions.

A sky daddy who exists precisely because he cannot be proven, ritual bathing, ritual cannibalism, healing by touch, and tens of thousands of diverse, rival churches all confident in their unique and mutually exclusively "knowledge" of sky daddy.

These are the things you believe. And you call Dawkins and me absurd? Have you gone mental?

I haven't even got to the really weird parts yet, like belief in a 6000 year old earth where Eve fed leaves to T freakin' Rex. And you think Dawkins is absurd for believing what he sees?

The absurdity is that thousands of years after we should have known better, we're still fooling ourselves. We're still listening to preachers who haven't any more faint clue about reality than my cat, yet we give them money to perpetuate the absurdity.

Grow up. Take a little responsibility.

Dawkins is right. Without religion, we'd be smarter, more peaceful, and happier. The only thing absurd about that is that more people don't get it yet.

DF
quote:
They concoct a belief in some god whether it be Dawkins, Darwin or whomever write about, argue for and defend it untiringly.


Despite what some of us say, you may not be too far off the mark. I never imagined myself being a defender of reality. Yet here I am doing it every friggin day with a zeal that does approach fanaticism.
Excerpts from The Root of All Evil? Part 1: The God Delusion. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)

"Fundamentalist American Christianity is attacking Science. But what is it offering instead? A mirror image of Islamic extremism instead, an American Taliban."

Then while showing pictures of the Twin Towers falling, articles about Bin laden & parts of a speech by Bush in the background, Dawkins says the following:

"To understand the likes of Osama Bin Laden, you have to realize that the religious terrorism they inspire is the logical outcome of deeply held faith. Even so-called moderate believers are part of the same religious fabric. They encourage unreason as a positive virtue. What’s really scary is that religious warriors think of what they are doing as the ultimate good. Those of us brought up in Christianity can soon get the message…”Onward Christian Soldiers”, “fight the good fight”, “Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross”, but as far as I’m concerned, they all between good and evil is really just the wall between two evils."

This last bit tells me he is clueless. What we are in actuality told is straight for the Bible..."For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" - Ephesians 6:12. To dummy that up, it is a SPIRITUAL battle.
I see that the topic shifted back to the fundies again.
Sorry the list was not as evil as all of you wanted. Of course it was only page one, and I did not read them, simply posted to contradict Skep's claim that nothing existed.
If I really wanted to, I am sure I could find twisted, sick, demented non-Christian crazies that have committed horrible deeds in the name of Man.
But, I don't want to, its pointless.
The only comment I have is the more you attack a religion, the more resilient it becomes.
In the words of Red Skelton, "May God Bless!".
Joy,

OK.

First, American fundies are attacking science. Did you see Jesus Camp? A youngster was praised for acknowledging that Galileo abandoned "science". Yes, this is a particular instance, but it cannot be unique. The young earth Creationists not only have to deny biology, but geology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, cosmology, and genetics to make their case. This encompasses much of the scientific world, and their opinion is hardly marginal, at least as far as popularity is concerned. It is in this view that Dawkins' position stands correct.

Dawkins says:
quote:
To understand the likes of Osama Bin Laden, you have to realize that the religious terrorism they inspire is the logical outcome of deeply held faith. Even so-called moderate believers are part of the same religious fabric. They encourage unreason as a positive virtue.
What's incorrect about this? When competing dogmas meet, there is no quarter given. When those of certain minds find themselves in head to head conflict, and surrender is impossible, what else is there to resort to except warfare? I'll give you this: The NT relies more on influence and persuasion, while the Quran relies on killing the ignorant bastards who fail to accept the Islamic truth. You must admit that Christians have done the same thing and there is no reason to think they may not do it again. Just look at Prop 8 if you think the religious won't throw their political weight around.

And then there's the issue of "moderate" religion. When push comes to shove the moderate religious fall in line with the radically religious. They certainly DO encourage unreason as a positive virtue. Do you believe faith is a virtue? If you do, then you are part of that system.

It may be a spiritual battle, but it's become concrete far to often. Tell the Muslims it's a spiritual value. They will respond with a suicide bomb. Tell the fundie christians it's a spiritual value. They will continue to deny scientific truths, train "young champions for Jesus" to thwart reason and promote superstition instead.

Modern religion is the avatar for the abandonment of reason. What other motive is there to disregard hundreds of years of scientific progress?

Whether it's fundie christianity or islam, it's a minor battle between superstition and reality. What, I think, riles the religious is that we demonstrate that battles between religions are between the green and the red religions, and we care nothing about green, red, or any other color of superstition. That is what Dawkins said. Any system of belief that denies reality is evil, by definition. When they fight, it is a conflict between evils.

It's time we rose above all religions, except for the philosophical influences they give us. Metaphysics are for the ancient Greeks. We have something they invented, but has only flourished lately--reason. It's a better way.

My dear, Dawkins is only scandalous to those for whom he has stripped away the pretenses and illusions of religion. If he threatens you, you should listen to him. Read his stuff. Understand what he is saying. There is no knife to your throat.

Do this, and then we will talk further.

I have listened to, and read, christian and other apologetics. It's transparently fraudulent, and easily dismissed on perfectly rational grounds.

Now, let's discuss Dawkins' motives. What motivates a person to write lengthy, academic, philosophical, intellectual books that say, in some detail, that religion is false?

Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor was a skeptic, but he pretended to believe in god out of compassion for the poor people he interrogated. He patronized those over whom he had power.

Dawkins has no power, but he has a voice, strengthened by his formidable intellect and achievements. He does not patronize. He has that much respect for human intelligence.

You have accused him of propaganda. Propaganda is a series of deliberate lies intended to further a political agenda. I'll admit, as does he, that Dawkins has an agenda, albeit not political. It's social. Mazeltov.

But he does not lie. His opinions are genuine and sincere. You might think they are lies because they are so very different from yours. They are genuine. I know. I share many of them.

What else motivates Dawkins? Knowing that 90% of humanity believes in one god or another, he takes a position that they're all wrong?

Well, we know that reality is not a matter of public opinion. Is it possible that he really does see religion as a force for illogic and unreasonableness? There is a good argument for this, as you have seen here for the past couple years.

Joy. I'm not asking that you agree with Dawkins. You are an independent adult, free to form and defend your own thoughts.

Dawkins is, too. And I submit his thoughts are sincere and compassionate.

DF
Dawkins is truly an evil man.

He blatantly teaches that parents have no right to teach their own children anything not approved by his own doctrine.

Dawkins is aware he cannot sway the average adult to his way of thinking but if he can plant the seed that parents are evil in the minds of enough children his agenda to destroy mankind will grow.

Dawkins has an underlying sickness in his mind the likes of which should be avoided at all costs.

His confederates will call you names and try to slick slime you into thinking he harmless.
This is not the case. Give them no quarter. Don’t fall into the trap of Dawkins` or the likes of Haggard TV evangelists .

Both spew out poison. Manmade.
why, Richard Dawkins is a wonderful man.

He never said you don't have the right to teach your kids anything, he just thinks indoctrinating them with religion before they have developed their reasoning faculties is a disservice to the kids.

We don't take 5 year old kids and insist they are Democratic or Republican kids. We don't label young children as Braves fans or Dodgers fans, we let them choose when they are old enough to be naturally curious.

But when it comes to the most controversial topic imaginable, we raise kids to believe that one or the other indefensible superstition is their personal reality.

This undermines the entire faculty of reason.

The late Dr. Gene Scott, a well known California preacher and TV evangelist, banned children younger than 12 from his services. While their parents were in his church, he put the kids on a bus and sent them to a museum or a park. He said they just can't understand religion, and without understanding faith is hollow. It's about the only thing on which we agreed.

Nah, Dawkins is a fine man. You just disagree with him, proving his point that religious disagreement often becomes irrational.

DF

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×