Question for atheists RE: 9/11

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


No. I am trying to be very patient here. I said that the Civil Rights Movement was not motivated by religion. Just as Hitler was not motivated by atheism. Yes, there were religious people in the movement but, guess what? There were a lot of Jewish people and atheists and other non Christian people who joined Martin Luther King (and by the way, he was a spokesperson for the movement but he did not create the movement). I don't even know why we are discussing this. I guess because you are trying to counter the assertion that atrocities are often committed in the name of God but never in the name of atheism or something like that. But there is no argument. It's just the way it is. I'm sure good things happen because of religion too but religion is not a prerequisite for good in this world. That's my point.

The problem is this: you started a discussion based on one "point" -- that people use religion for bad outcomes only. And then when I point out that MLK used religion for good purposes, you switch the goalposts by saying that it's not the leader who matters, it's the followers. Tricky. But to return to the original line of thought, started by you, yourself, Martin Luther King, a Christian, led many people, including Christians as well as many others, in a campaign that involved much public prayer, to a very good outcome!

Switching the goalposts is a sleazy debating tactic, and it falls apart pretty fast. For one thing it's painfully obvious - nobody ever said "The Civil Rights movement was motivated by religion," which you're trying to attribute to me, but I'll deny right now that I ever said that. Be my guest, go back and bestow on all your readers the day and time when I allegedly said that.

And stop with the patronizing language ("I'm trying to be very patient here"). It makes you look like a complete jerk. Do you really want to broadcast what a sleazy and useless debator you are?

Ok. I give up... you honestly are not getting it and I don't care to explain it to you. I never made the points that you said I made. Period. But I am not going to talk you through it again. I no longer think that you are deliberately obtuse.

Yes, you quite obviously did make the point I attributed to you. I bolded it, above, to help you out.

And your only response, again, is ad hominem attacks. Go storm off in a fake huff, if that's the only option left to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh come on, that's really a stretch. Maybe the PP was right when he or she gave the advice not to bother with deliberately obtuse people. I can't tell if you are missing my points on purpose or if you really don't get it. But I don't think there's any point in trying...

The same accusation could be leveled at you, and the way you resort to ad hominem attacks, like calling people "deliberately obtuse" or saying "you really don't get it", when you obviously have nothing else to say.

You want to argue that Martin Luther King's movement was not religious in character? You really don't remember him praying in various public places, and his followers praying with him? You're so full of it.

Clearly you don't want to have a serious discussion. I won't speculate on your intelligence level.

No. I am trying to be very patient here. I said that the Civil Rights Movement was not motivated by religion. Just as Hitler was not motivated by atheism. Yes, there were religious people in the movement but, guess what? There were a lot of Jewish people and atheists and other non Christian people who joined Martin Luther King (and by the way, he was a spokesperson for the movement but he did not create the movement). I don't even know why we are discussing this. I guess because you are trying to counter the assertion that atrocities are often committed in the name of God but never in the name of atheism or something like that. But there is no argument. It's just the way it is. I'm sure good things happen because of religion too but religion is not a prerequisite for good in this world. That's my point.

The problem is this: you started a discussion based on one "point" -- that people use religion for bad outcomes only. And then when I point out that MLK used religion for good purposes, you switch the goalposts by saying that it's not the leader who matters, it's the followers. Tricky. But to return to the original line of thought, started by you, yourself, Martin Luther King, a Christian, led many people, including Christians as well as many others, in a campaign that involved much public prayer, to a very good outcome!

Switching the goalposts is a sleazy debating tactic, and it falls apart pretty fast. For one thing it's painfully obvious - nobody ever said "The Civil Rights movement was motivated by religion," which you're trying to attribute to me, but I'll deny right now that I ever said that. Be my guest, go back and bestow on all your readers the day and time when I allegedly said that.

And stop with the patronizing language ("I'm trying to be very patient here"). It makes you look like a complete jerk. Do you really want to broadcast what a sleazy and useless debator you are?

Ok. I give up... you honestly are not getting it and I don't care to explain it to you. I never made the points that you said I made. Period. But I am not going to talk you through it again. I no longer think that you are deliberately obtuse.

Let's try again with the quotes thing, because your fake huff is too funny to let go....

Yes, you quite obviously did make the point I attributed to you. I bolded it, above, to help you out.

And your only response, again, is ad hominem attacks. Go storm off in a fake huff, if that's the only option left to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


No. I am trying to be very patient here. I said that the Civil Rights Movement was not motivated by religion. Just as Hitler was not motivated by atheism. Yes, there were religious people in the movement but, guess what? There were a lot of Jewish people and atheists and other non Christian people who joined Martin Luther King (and by the way, he was a spokesperson for the movement but he did not create the movement). I don't even know why we are discussing this. I guess because you are trying to counter the assertion that atrocities are often committed in the name of God but never in the name of atheism or something like that. But there is no argument. It's just the way it is. I'm sure good things happen because of religion too but religion is not a prerequisite for good in this world. That's my point.

Here you go, the hilariously patronizing, and wrong, point that you now deny making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


No. I am trying to be very patient here. I said that the Civil Rights Movement was not motivated by religion. Just as Hitler was not motivated by atheism. Yes, there were religious people in the movement but, guess what? There were a lot of Jewish people and atheists and other non Christian people who joined Martin Luther King (and by the way, he was a spokesperson for the movement but he did not create the movement). I don't even know why we are discussing this. I guess because you are trying to counter the assertion that atrocities are often committed in the name of God but never in the name of atheism or something like that. But there is no argument. It's just the way it is. I'm sure good things happen because of religion too but religion is not a prerequisite for good in this world. That's my point.

Here you go, the hilariously patronizing, and wrong, point that you now deny making.

[Anonymous]

Lots of duplicate posts, but still hilarious.

[Anonymous]

PP 13:34 here. I never meant to say that atheists were on any sort of higher moral plane. Hell no. That would be a ridiculous statement. What I meant is that atheism is not a good motivating factor for violence or fanaticism of any kind. Nothing major, as far as I know, has ever been done in the name of atheism because atheism is not especially inspiring. Atheists have done some big things and some great things but they haven't done those things because of their lack of belief in gods. One would think that religion and, specifically, fear of hell or other punishment would prevent people from committing atrocities but that hasn't been the case throughout history either. Of course there are immoral atheists who have done bad things but the ones who have managed to commit genocide have had to use motivation other than atheism to get people to support them and that has been fairly complicated. Religion seems to be the easiest way to get crazy fanatics to kill people and often to kill themselves in the process.

The bolded statement above is historically false.

Atheism is absolutely essential to communism. Communism is responsible for 150 million to 250 million deaths during the 20th century. Marx and his followers specifically, repeatedly, publicly, explicitly, and brutally defended and demonstrated their atheism.

Marx argued atheism was an abstraction, but that communism begins with atheism.

Lenin: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i.e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i.e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

Pope Pius XI wrote a summary of the link between communism and atheism within his encyclical DIVINI REDEMPTORIS (On Atheistic Communism) in 1937:

"The doctrine of modern Communism...is in substance based on the principles of dialectical and historical materialism previously advocated by Marx, of which the theoricians of bolshevism claim to possess the only genuine interpretation. According to this doctrine there is in the world only one reality, matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal and man. Even human society is nothing but a phenomenon and form of matter, evolving in the same way. By a law of inexorable necessity and through a perpetual conflict of forces, matter moves towards the final synthesis of a classless society. In such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no room for the idea of God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a future life. Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the Communists claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final synthesis can be accelerated by man. Hence they endeavor to sharpen the antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society. Thus the class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity. On the other hand, all other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must be annihilated as hostile to the human race."

The most murderous dictators and movements of the 20th century were not accidentally atheistic. Atheism inspired their actions. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, reflecting upon what he survived in revolutionary Russia, "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

[Anonymous]

21:10 could be "storming off in a fake huff." Or she could be a victim of a typical chat room malady, which is being too arrogant and self-righteous to deign to read anybody else's posts, or even to bother remembering what she typed 10 minutes ago, before she lets losoe with a blast of insults.

Admittedly, it's hard to tell the difference in real time. But a self-righteous atheists, that's something to ponder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh come on, that's really a stretch. Maybe the PP was right when he or she gave the advice not to bother with deliberately obtuse people. I can't tell if you are missing my points on purpose or if you really don't get it. But I don't think there's any point in trying...

The same accusation could be leveled at you, and the way you resort to ad hominem attacks, like calling people "deliberately obtuse" or saying "you really don't get it", when you obviously have nothing else to say.

You want to argue that Martin Luther King's movement was not religious in character? You really don't remember him praying in various public places, and his followers praying with him? You're so full of it.

Clearly you don't want to have a serious discussion. I won't speculate on your intelligence level.

No. I am trying to be very patient here. I said that the Civil Rights Movement was not motivated by religion. Just as Hitler was not motivated by atheism. Yes, there were religious people in the movement but, guess what? There were a lot of Jewish people and atheists and other non Christian people who joined Martin Luther King (and by the way, he was a spokesperson for the movement but he did not create the movement). I don't even know why we are discussing this. I guess because you are trying to counter the assertion that atrocities are often committed in the name of God but never in the name of atheism or something like that. But there is no argument. It's just the way it is. I'm sure good things happen because of religion too but religion is not a prerequisite for good in this world. That's my point.

The problem is this: you started a discussion based on one "point" -- that people use religion for bad outcomes only. And then when I point out that MLK used religion for good purposes, you switch the goalposts by saying that it's not the leader who matters, it's the followers. Tricky. But to return to the original line of thought, started by you, yourself, Martin Luther King, a Christian, led many people, including Christians as well as many others, in a campaign that involved much public prayer, to a very good outcome!

Switching the goalposts is a sleazy debating tactic, and it falls apart pretty fast. For one thing it's painfully obvious - nobody ever said "The Civil Rights movement was motivated by religion," which you're trying to attribute to me, but I'll deny right now that I ever said that. Be my guest, go back and bestow on all your readers the day and time when I allegedly said that.

And stop with the patronizing language ("I'm trying to be very patient here"). It makes you look like a complete jerk. Do you really want to broadcast what a sleazy and useless debator you are?

Ok. I give up... you honestly are not getting it and I don't care to explain it to you. I never made the points that you said I made. Period. But I am not going to talk you through it again. I no longer think that you are deliberately obtuse.

PP here: See, I told you. OP has no interest in a dialogue. They're merely trying to feed their martyr complex. And, yes, the obtuseness--and sanctimony--are deliberate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PP 13:34 here. I never meant to say that atheists were on any sort of higher moral plane. Hell no. That would be a ridiculous statement. What I meant is that atheism is not a good motivating factor for violence or fanaticism of any kind. Nothing major, as far as I know, has ever been done in the name of atheism because atheism is not especially inspiring. Atheists have done some big things and some great things but they haven't done those things because of their lack of belief in gods. One would think that religion and, specifically, fear of hell or other punishment would prevent people from committing atrocities but that hasn't been the case throughout history either. Of course there are immoral atheists who have done bad things but the ones who have managed to commit genocide have had to use motivation other than atheism to get people to support them and that has been fairly complicated. Religion seems to be the easiest way to get crazy fanatics to kill people and often to kill themselves in the process.

The bolded statement above is historically false.

Atheism is absolutely essential to communism. Communism is responsible for 150 million to 250 million deaths during the 20th century. Marx and his followers specifically, repeatedly, publicly, explicitly, and brutally defended and demonstrated their atheism.

Marx argued atheism was an abstraction, but that communism begins with atheism.

Lenin: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i.e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i.e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

Pope Pius XI wrote a summary of the link between communism and atheism within his encyclical DIVINI REDEMPTORIS (On Atheistic Communism) in 1937:

"The doctrine of modern Communism...is in substance based on the principles of dialectical and historical materialism previously advocated by Marx, of which the theoricians of bolshevism claim to possess the only genuine interpretation. According to this doctrine there is in the world only one reality, matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal and man. Even human society is nothing but a phenomenon and form of matter, evolving in the same way. By a law of inexorable necessity and through a perpetual conflict of forces, matter moves towards the final synthesis of a classless society. In such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no room for the idea of God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a future life. Insisting on the dialectical aspect of their materialism, the Communists claim that the conflict which carries the world towards its final synthesis can be accelerated by man. Hence they endeavor to sharpen the antagonisms which arise between the various classes of society. Thus the class struggle with its consequent violent hate and destruction takes on the aspects of a crusade for the progress of humanity. On the other hand, all other forces whatever, as long as they resist such systematic violence, must be annihilated as hostile to the human race."

The most murderous dictators and movements of the 20th century were not accidentally atheistic. Atheism inspired their actions. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, reflecting upon what he survived in revolutionary Russia, "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

There is literally no atrocity committed by atheists that hasn't been committed by devout religious folks. Only difference is, you can add sectarian atrocities to their tally as well. Of course the CEO of the Catholic church is going to blame atheism. They're stealing market-share. Refresh my memory, though: was "Pius XI" the Nazi collaborator pope, or did he come after?

[Anonymous]

PP here: See, I told you. OP has no interest in a dialogue. They're merely trying to feed their martyr complex. And, yes, the obtuseness--and sanctimony--are deliberate.

Who IS this PP? And what makes you tick?

[Anonymous]

PP here: See, I told you. OP has no interest in a dialogue. They're merely trying to feed their martyr complex. And, yes, the obtuseness--and sanctimony--are deliberate.

PP, you are quite a character.

I am the OP. I identified myself as such the couple times I posted. I wish the thread could have stayed more focused and original, but so goes DCUM.

Thanks again to those who posted personal replies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:21:10 could be "storming off in a fake huff." Or she could be a victim of a typical chat room malady, which is being too arrogant and self-righteous to deign to read anybody else's posts, or even to bother remembering what she typed 10 minutes ago, before she lets losoe with a blast of insults.

Admittedly, it's hard to tell the difference in real time. But a self-righteous atheists, that's something to ponder.

Or maybe my kid had a seizure tonight and I have no interest in discussing this with you any further. I made my points clearly and succinctly and I got frustrated with you twisting my words and my intentions but I was never as insulting as you were. That's enough for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:21:10 could be "storming off in a fake huff." Or she could be a victim of a typical chat room malady, which is being too arrogant and self-righteous to deign to read anybody else's posts, or even to bother remembering what she typed 10 minutes ago, before she lets losoe with a blast of insults.

Admittedly, it's hard to tell the difference in real time. But a self-righteous atheists, that's something to ponder.

Or maybe my kid had a seizure tonight and I have no interest in discussing this with you any further. I made my points clearly and succinctly and I got frustrated with you twisting my words and my intentions but I was never as insulting as you were. That's enough for me.

How did anybody twist your words? Your words are in bold for anybody to see and compare to your subsequent statements. Pretty funny.

[Anonymous]

Are you guys planning on arguing for two more pages about who was more insulting or patronizing? I can't even tell who is who anymore and it has turned into silliness. Just let it go.

And, it makes you look foolish when you're insulting another poster while accusing them of insulting people.

Since we're all anonymous here, I will add that I have posted on this thread, but not about the civil rights discussion or its ensuing argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not the pp. But it isn't what those people were, it's what their motivation was and what caused it.

BTW - Hitler wasn't an atheist. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Stalin and Pol Pot killed people because they didn't believe in a god.

as a side note. If any of you are interested. Alice Miller was a Jewish psychologist who studied the childhoods of the ww2 mass killers.
His books are scary. If you really are interested in History, I suggest reading his books as well.
Hitlers father was an alcholic and violent and his mother powerless to defend herself or her kid. Apparently it was not surprising he fell for the ideology pushed by the natzis.