[Via Pharyngula] Christian groups must be getting more and more aware of the rise of atheism and agnosticism. Now, they’re mounting television commercials to attack those beliefs.
New Commercial Refutes Atheism!
American Vision is launching a relentless and systematic response to militant atheism. We’ve produced a brilliant 2-minute commercial that we plan to broadcast globally via the Internet and Television. Atheists present themselves as enlightened and civil. But this new commercial will reveal the shocking truth to viewers. The French Revolution, Communism, Nazism, etc. have taught us that the atheistic worldview will inevitably lead to the persecution of Christians and the killing of anyone who gets in the way. What’s worse is that atheism is paving a wide road for Islam to advance in our nation and around the world.
(American Vision: A Biblical Worldview Ministry)
We’ll they’ve convinced me that people who use words like “reason”, “rational”, and “real” are anything but. Thank goodness I can trust Martin Luther: “Reason is the whore of the Devil. It can only blaspheme and dishonour everything God has said or done”
Let’s do a quick check on the information presented in that video:
(1) Robespierre – A major figure of the French Revolution which involved the overthrow of the French royalty. The French Clergy has supported the monarchy, and, as a result, had gained the ire of the French people. Robespierre opposed the atheists of the day, and according to wikipedia:
Robespierre’s desire for revolutionary change was not limited to the political realm. He sought to instill a spiritual resurgence in the French nation based on Deist beliefs. Accordingly, on 7 May 1794 Robespierre had a decree passed by the Convention that established a Supreme Being. The notion of the Supreme Being was based on ideas that Jean-Jacques Rousseau had outlined in The Social Contract. In honor of the Supreme Being, a great celebration was held on 8 June. Robespierre, as President of the Convention, walked first in the festival procession and delivered a speech.
In this speech, Robespierre made it clear that his concept of a Supreme Being was far different from the traditional God of Christianity.
Robespierre intended to establish the Cult of the Supreme Being as the French state religion after the revolution. (Rotten.com has a good summary of the Cult of the Supreme Being.)
The fact of the matter is the Robespierre was not an atheist or agnostic, and putting him (a bloodthirsty deist supporting a national religion) in with modern day atheists (who write books) is nothing but propaganda.
(2) The pictures shown in the latter half of the commercial involved:
(a) Racism against Blacks in America What does this have to do with atheism and agnosticism? Nothing. These acts were carried out by Christians. The KKK has always maintained and supported the idea of the United States as a Christian nation. See also the Curse of Ham.
(b) Nazism. For a long time, Christians have attempted to tie atheism to the crimes of Nazism. Sometimes, I think Christians merely see the world as “Christian” and “Non-Christian/Not-Real-Christian” (lumping together Nazis, Muslims, Atheists, and everyone else into one monolithic group). The fact of the matter is that many Nazis were Christians (Hitler didn’t put “God with us” on the belt buckles of Nazis soldiers for nothing). Hitler referred to God and Jesus on numerous occasions:
“My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.”
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith … We need believing people.”
“We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press … we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess.”
In many ways, Hitler’s views about Jews mirrored Martin Luther’s – the very same Martin Luther who was a former Catholic turned Protestant reformer in 16th century Germany.
He argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but were “the devil’s people.” They were “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.” The synagogue was a “defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut …” and Jews were full of the “devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine.” He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews’ property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these “poisonous envenomed worms” be forced into labor or expelled “for all time.” He also seemed to sanction their murder, writing “We are at fault in not slaying them.” (Link)
(c) Stalin appears briefly in one picture. He was an atheist. Communism is a bad economic system, and seems to favor dictatorial control. Some atheists consider communism to be a kind of state religion, and a great deal of harm has been caused in the pursuit of this type of utopian dream. I consider communism to be the cause of these evils, and the atheism favored by communism is somewhere between a historical accident (reflecting Marx views) or was a means to clear away people’s allegiance to anything other than the state. Christians like to argue that communist atrocities are what happens when you kick God out of the country, but I think it’s a lesson in what happens when you subjugate everything to one ideology – regardless of whether it’s name is “Communism”, “Christianity”, “Islam”, etc.
(3) Richard Dawkins thinks that “parents who teach their children about God should be arrested”. This goes back to a petition that Dawkins signed and then retracted his signature on. Dawkins stated:
I did sign the petition, but I hadn’t thought it through when I did so, and I now regret it. I have asked the organizer to remove my name.
…
I signed it having read only the main petition: “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.” I regret to say that I did not notice the supporting statement with the heading, “More details from petition creator”: “In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians.” If I had read that, I certainly would not have signed the petition, because, as explained in The God Delusion, I am in favour of teaching the Bible as literature, and I am in favour of teaching comparative religion.
(Link)
Specifically, Dawkins reacted to the word “indoctrinate” in the heading of the petition, and also believed it was wrong to refer to children as “Muslim”, “Christian”, or some other religion if they were under 16, since they didn’t really have any opinions of their own – they are merely parroting the religion taught to them.
I can assure you that atheists do not want to make teaching religion illegal. It’s much better that people come to atheism and agnosticism through their own experience. Having governments encourage or coerce people into any belief is the wrong way to go about it – and atheists agree.
(4) “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted” This is a quote attributed to Dostoevsky (although it’s actually a paraphrase of an idea expressed by one of the characters of Dostoevsky’s book The Brothers Karamazov). Dostoevsky was a Christian, and that makes the phrase not the statement about atheism from an atheist, but rather a statement about atheism by one of it’s opponents and detractors. It is describes the fear that religious people have of atheism and atheists – that “godless” does not merely describe a lack of belief in god, but also a moral depravity.
While I’ve talked about the source of my morality in earlier posts, most atheists/agnostics believe that conscious beings have certain inalienable rights simply based on the fact that they are conscious beings – we have no inherent superiority or inferiority to anyone else, and we feel no need to derive these rights by divine fiat. It makes us all equals, and from that equality comes morality – i.e. the legitimate ways of interacting with each other.
Additionally, when we look at the world, we find that atheistic countries (like Scandinavian countries) have lower crime rates than the US. If atheists truly believed “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”, then we should see much higher crime rates. Polls in the US have also shown that religious people are more likely than atheists to support the death penalty and torture. If atheists believed that “everything is permitted”, then the approval rates for torture should be much higher among atheists.
Abrahamic religions are essentially a big “might makes right” system of morality where God is defined as the ultimate “might” and is described as good – therefore, everyone needs to do good because that’s what the most powerful guy in the universe says. (And when there are cases of Old Testament atrocities – Christians cannot object to them because God approved them.)
(5) “atheism is paving a wide road for Islam to advance in our nation and around the world” This was not in the commercial, but was in the summary of the commercial. It’s an odd thing to say that rejecting the idea of God existence can lead people to Islam. The only thing I can say about this is that some people will reach a point in their life when they will search for meaning and purpose in their lives through cults and religions. It’s an unfortunate fact of society that people will look to religion’s empty promises for meaning and purpose. Atheism does not offer meaning and purpose (you have to find that on your own), and so people will probably always look to religious leaders offering up big, empty claims and easy pathways to life’s meaning.
In Christian societies, those people will tend to look to Christianity for those answers. In places where religion has been cleared away by atheism, a person might look in more diverse places for that “meaning and purpose” – they might look at various cults (e.g. Scientology, Aum Shinrikyo, Falun Gong) and major religions (Christianity, Islam, etc). So, I think there may be a grain of truth in the statement that atheism can lead to a diversification of religious views – even if the actual number of religious people is shrinking. I also think that atheists and agnostics should make sure they are addressing the failure of Islam as a religion. (We tend to point out the problems with Christianity first because most atheists are in Western, Christian countries, and we know a great deal about Christianity from personal experience. Foreign religions, on the other hand, are a little harder for us to criticize simply because we are less familiar with them.) I dislike Islam more than the other major religions – primarily because of the dictatorial aspects of Islam (apostates are to be killed, unbelievers are considered inferior Kafir, there are many verses in the Koran advocating violence, Islam has failed to create modern scientific societies, it advocates a marriage of government and religion, many fundamentalist Muslims consider democracy to be against the teachings of the Koran, etc). Islam would brings all the problems and backwards ideas of 7th century Saudi Arabia and attempts to entrench them in modern society. If atheists and agnostics can make any religion falter, I think we should work towards making Islam the first one eliminated.
.
The unfortunate thing is that Christians can put out this kind of disinformation about atheism and agnosticism, we’ll never be able to fully blunt the propaganda effects because they are much more numerous and have more money. Unfortunately, in the minds of many people, their disinformation will become fact.
Tiny Frog 
uhm, what?
I’m a bit confused why they showed images of the police beating black civil rights marchers in the South. Are they trying to say that the Blacks were Christians, and the Cops were not?
And what’s up with the Nazi images? I mean I know its standard operating procedure to claim your enemy and Hitler believe the same thing, but there is ample evidence, and direct quotes from Hitler himself, that he was a Christian and detested Atheism:
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
( Adolf Hitler, from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507. )
===
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
( Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65. )
===
“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”
( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered on July 5, 1944; from Charles Bracelen Flood, Hitler: The Path to Power, Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989, p. 208. )
===
“I say: my Christian feeling tells me that my lord and savior is a warrior. It calls my attention to the man who, lonely and surrounded by only a few supporters, recognized what they [the Jews] were, and called for a battle against them, and who, by God, was not the greatest sufferer, but the greatest warrior. .
( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered on April 12, 1922; from Charles Bracelen Flood, Hitler: The Path to Power, Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989, pp. 261-262. )
===
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
( Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933. )
Maybe these guys should have actually done some research before their circle-jerk video making party.
It is indeed amazing to see atheists vehemently protesting that the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Communism were not attributable to atheism, while striving to assert Hitler was a Christian. Yet the title Christian Biblically denoted a people of New Testament faith (Acts 11:26), which people never killed anyone in defending or expanding the faith, when acting in accordance with it (it also actually frees one up intellectually). And as this is one the most manifest doctrines, i can easily prove that this is the case. Such things as Rome’s Caesario-papacy and it’s Crusades and Inquisitions depended on and effected ignorance of the Bible, and thus was common knowledge of it was suppressed. Of course, the militant atheists argument requires little distinction be made between aberrant Christianity and it’s Biblical form, as well as other false religions, the more violent and suppressive the better (thus militant Islam is the atheist’s best friend).
In contrast with which, militant atheism promotes another religion, that of a belief system whose main tenet cannot be proven, and which has a far greater potential for evil than other false religions, as it lacks a transcendent authoritative codified code of morals, and instead it operates out of an objectively baseless morality, and can only assure us it will do what is “reasonable” (like making Hitler a Christian). However, as much as they seek to deny it, it was such an objectively baseless atheistic morality that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and classic Communism operated out of in supressing and slaying their millions, doing what was “reasonable to them! (thus i am not surprised many atheists today speak of removing children from Christian/creationist homes, which would only be the beginning).
Far from “political religion” being to blame, it is atheism that is conductive to such, and to effective worship of self or other men, such as we seen in N. Korea today.
As for me and my house, we will serve the one who transformed my life, who served other’s selflessly and sinlessly, and then gave Himself for us and rose again, And whose reality is uniquely proven in the hearts and lives of multitudes who have trusted and obeyed him now and in times past. To God be the glory.
Yet the title Christian Biblically denoted a people of New Testament faith (Acts 11:26), which people never killed anyone in defending or expanding the faith
The question of how much the Old Testament laws should be followed is always an open one for Christians. There are plenty of Old Testament cases involving God commanding “His people” to kill and rewarding them for doing so. If God is “the same yesterday, today, and forever”, then it’s not really accurate to point simply to the New Testament.
For example, in Numbers, God commands the Jews to kill the Midianites. Based on the Biblical numbers given, tens of thousands of Midianites were killed by the Jews – and that includes men, women, children, and the elderly (Numbers 31). The only ones saved were the virgin girls who the Jews were allowed to keep. In that same story, God rewards Phinehas and his descendants with priesthood because he killed two people (a Jewish man and his Midianite girlfriend) even before God had commanded him to do it. (Numbers 25:6-13)
The rest of your post is mostly fearmongering, confusing communism with atheism, and completely imaginary “facts” (“thus i am not surprised many atheists today speak of removing children from Christian/creationist homes”).
Dear Tiny Frog,
>The question of how much the Old Testament laws should be followed is always an open one for Christians. <
This is hardly the case, in the context in which we are dealing with. One of the most manifest doctrines in the New Testament is that we are both under the promised New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-33), which is not according to the covenant God made with Israel of old, and under which a certain specified class of laws, namely the dietary and ceremonial laws were typological and are abrogated as to literal obedience, while the purely moral laws are to be kept to their fullest extent, not simply the letter, as applied under the New Testament.
Civil laws can basically be supported as the civil authorities use them justly, if consistent with the New Testament.
But any controversy you refer to relates to things like whether Christians can get tattoos, or whether turning the other cheek disallows basic defense of self or other’s from immediate violence, and are irrelevant to your attempted application. There simply is no controversy, and can be none, as to whether Bible – believing Christians can use the sword to avenge or to wage war in order to defend or expand the faith.
(Mat 5:43-44) “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. {44} But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”
(Rm 12:19: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath..”
(Eph 6:12) “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
(2Cor. 10:4) “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.”
(2 Cor 6:7) “By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left..”
The type of kingdom being changed, so the manner of warfare is also. Therefore Jesus stated,
“My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36).
Thus both in principle and precept, such violence is disallowed. Neither is thee even one example in all of the history of the early church in the Bible of anything even close to such warfare.
Thus the only thing left is Jesus words before His imminent arrest in instructing the defenseless apostles to buy a sword (Lk. 22:35-38), which was for didactic purposes, for not only did two suffice, and this was before the institution of the New Covenant (by His death), but He warned them that those who “take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Mt. 26:52), and healed the man who was wounded by Peter’s use of it (Lk. 22:50, 51).
Thus there simply is no real substance to such things as the Crusades and Inquisitions, which both Islam and atheists use to denigrate a broad brushed Christianity, and as stated before, thus was not a product of Bible literacy nor of the Biblical gospel of grace, but of Rome’s suppression and perversion of it.http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/papalpresumption.html
After the Reformation both the preaching and manner of propagation of the gospel began to be more consistent with the Biblical church, but men like Calvin and the Puritan’s yet held onto some Biblical practices, the latter persecuting Roger Williams, who exampled a Biblical form of the New Testament principal of separation of church from State (Mt. 22:21; 1Cor. 5:12, 13; 1Pet. 2:16).
As for the conquests of Israel of old, such are only applicable in a spiritual sense to Christians, and unlike in Islam, these were not in any way universal, nor perpetual, but limited to place and (a destructive) people.
As for you allegations of “confusing communism with atheism, and completely imaginary “facts,” there is nothing confusing or imaginary at all, as unlike what i have just demonstrated, atheism has not cogent nor codified transcendent authority by which to establish what is reasonable (and owes much to the Bible in appealing to accepted moral norms), and can offer no real assurance that what is terms reasonable, such as removing children from Christian/creationist homes (which you are sympathetic to) will not morph into even worse Stalinistic or Communistic type tactics.
(I usually try to reply in a timely manner, but I’ve been rather busy with things. Anyway – )
First of all, I agree that the New Testament does not condone violence. Although, the “best” New Testament argument against violence “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Mt. 26:52) is a little odd in that – at face value – it prohibits people from self-defense or national defense (afterall, the apostle was attempting to defend Jesus), which would be an odd teaching. Further, it would mark a contrast with the Old Testament (when attacks were “divinely” ordered) – apparently, “for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” doesn’t apply in the Old Testament.
Second, not all Christians behave strictly according to the Bible. (Like Ghandi said, “I like your Christ, but don’t like your Christians. You Christians are so unlike your Christ.”) You can say that they are contravening the Biblical teachings, although that doesn’t much matter to those being attacked. In general, I’d say that the atrocities carried out by Christians were done either (A) in the attempt to stamp-out heresy (as with the Inquisition and the killing of the Cathars) – and given the eternal ramifications of heresy, one could argue that they were actually saving people’s souls by killing off people promoting a false doctrine; or (B) they were done as part of a “just” punishment – as was the case with killing of witches, abortionists, and Jews (who have been blamed for not only being greedy conspiratorial Christ-killers, but even of causing plague in europe). The first instance might contravene New Testament scripture, but you can see how it have a certain logic given a medieval Christian mindset. Of course, the intention of my post was not to complain about Christian atrocities (unlike some unbelievers, I rarely talk about Christian atrocities because I think they were caused by a medieval mindset) – rather, I oppose Christianity simply because it is a false religion. The intention of my post was not to complain about Christian atrocities, but to complain about the reverse: the inaccurate scapegoating of atheists and agnostics.
You attempted to say that I was “striving to assert Hitler was a Christian”. I think it’s clear that Hitler had his own unique religious ideas that was kind of a twisted version of Christianity that supported his personal beliefs and feelings. I think it’s quite clear that he did believe in God. To use Hitler as an example of atheistic thought is completely off base. Instead of talking about that, you attempted to attack me for “striving to assert Hitler was a Christian” (which I never said). In fact, in the original post, I said:
Now, you’ll notice that I put Nazis into the “Non-Christian/Not-Real-Christian” group, not the “Christian” group. I think that made my views clear that Hitler and the Nazis were following a twisted version of Christianity (which they called “Christianity” and was connected to views held by Christians such as Martin Luther), and they were certainly not following some atheistic belief system. (Additionally, I think it’s common for people to twist religion/theism into something that supports people’s own personal beliefs – and thereby, give added weight to their ideas because God supposedly supports them. I can’t help but be reminded of the quip: You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do.)
Further, I don’t believe “the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot” were attributable to atheism. They were due to the human folly of trying to establish a utopia. Part of the problem with utopias is that they identify and demonize portions of the population which are “roadblocks” to reaching that utopia – e.g. a “workers paradise”. (The Nazis were also guilty of this.) Those “roadblocks” are then persecuted, attacked, killed, imprisoned, and silenced. That’s the real source of the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
atheism … can offer no real assurance that what is terms reasonable, such as removing children from Christian/creationist homes (which you are sympathetic to) will not morph into even worse Stalinistic or Communistic type tactics.
When you say “such as removing children from Christian/creationist homes (which you are sympathetic to)”, I’m unsure whether you say I am sympathetic to the idea of removing children from Christian/creationist homes, or if I am sympathetic to the people who would suffer under such a crime. I think I made my views quite clear in the post “I can assure you that atheists do not want to make teaching religion illegal. It’s much better that people come to atheism and agnosticism through their own experience. Having governments encourage or coerce people into any belief is the wrong way to go about it – and atheists agree.” I should also add that I was raised in a Christian/creationist home. So, I’m unsure what you mean when you say it will “morph into” something even worse – since I said atheists and agnostics oppose the idea in the first place.
atheism has not cogent nor codified transcendent authority by which to establish what is reasonable (and owes much to the Bible in appealing to accepted moral norms)
As for atheism leading to the degeneration of society, one thing that people never mention is the fact that many atheistic societies have low crime rates. In fact, countries like France, Norway, and Sweden have both high rates of atheism and lower crime rates than the (theistic) United States. If atheism were truly as bad as you think it is, these countries should have higher crime rates.
Here is an image comparing various levels of religiosity and homicide rates (taken from this article). If atheism leads to higher crime, we should see correlations in the direction of the red lines (which I’ve drawn on the images). Tell me if you can see some correlation there that supports the atheism = criminality link, because I certainly don’t.
Regarding “and owes much to the Bible in appealing to accepted moral norms”, well – yes and no. I understand that our society was strongly influenced by the Judeo-Christian ideas, but those same ideas exist pretty universally. Egypt and the Babylonians did have laws and moral norms – and they existed before the Jews codified them. You might even be surprised to learn that the Golden Rule existed in other cultures around the world before it was even uttered by Jesus.
“May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me.” – Plato, 4th Century BC
Exactly what explanation is there for the ‘This is the Enemy’ poster that is shown?
How ignorant are these people?! Nazism is based off of Catholosism. Marxism is based off a blend of Juadism and Christianity. And the French Revolution was simply the overthrowing of a monarchy with no connection to religion. You people sicken me. Didn’t your precious Jesus tell you to love? Get with the program dumb asses. Love is the next big thing.
it makes me so sad that you all probably beleive this… ugh… atheist are kind people too. theres a thing called humanism. and alturism. which according to christians can not exist. tut tut. also richard dawkins is an extremist (who uses big words). extremists of any side are ugly.
Oh feel the love in those posts. Why then were Christians declared enemies of the volk then?
Oh feel the love in those posts. Why then were Christians declared enemies of the volk then?
When and where were the Christians declared the enemies of the volk? In fact, Nazis were required to provide proof of their Christian Baptism in order to be considered good Nazis.
See this video:
speaking of narrowed minded….that commerical is the defintion of narrow…..lets look at the one period of liberation in france…..lets not look at the religous wars of the present and past…..i know of a lot of religious wars….not so many atheist wars….Nazism is based on christianity….the atheist didn’t hate the jews….but the christians did….hmmm….i think i will take atheism…
Why is the narrator talking in such a patronizing voice? That really bothered me.
Now, not having done any research, I only have my opinion to present (yes, I’m ready for the flame-fest to follow). Here goes:
Everyone, shut up. Got your attention? I agree with Mr. Dawkins in saying that no child under 16 should be identified by a particular ideology. Being young, i know how to “parrot” very well and can seem like a life-long regular at most religious gatherings. I haven’t ever really felt the whole Christian thing, never felt anything. My family is Christian, but I identify with tribal or spiritualism more that that. I have met less Christians who act as Christ taught than i can count on all ten fingers. But I’m not saying atheism is the answer. Teaching about all religions, atheism, beliefs seems to work much better.
People should have more ideas and less beliefs. People die over beliefs, ideas are much easier to change (to paraphrase Dogma)
That advert is sickening – why do they have to insult and belittle atheists in order to promote their religion?
Tufty
(see my blog against atheophobia)
This is rediculs
what?
I must have missed the part in the Gospel where Jesus commanded his followers to spread hatred, fear, and lies; but then, I haven’t read all of it so maybe it’s in Paul somewhere.
Ah, here it is:
The Letter of Paul to the Romulans, 6:29-31:
And He said unto them, “Go ye unto the Gentiles, and there ye will find among them that bimbo who hath the most whiny voice, which grateth on thy nerves as they were like unto soft cheese. And say ye unto her, ‘Narrate for us this video, and speak as thou wouldst unto a child who hath six years of age, for the wits of the faithful have become slack as wilted lettuce, and their wrath falters, and they do not curse or strike or slay the infidel.’ Then shall ye make this video, and let it then be viewed by those among you who are of the dullest wit, and they shall be moved to curse, and to strike, and to slay, for that is the will of Allah. Er, I mean The Lord.” And it was done, just as He had foretold.
It is not whether Hitler was a christian or not, but whether the Church of the first 2K years could possibly be Holy. The crusades and inquisition, the “house arrest” of Galileo, the persecution of the Jews indicate otherwise.
All religions want no more than the status quo:
Date of earth – much older than predicted by fundimentalists
Dinosaurs and man co-existed – not possible
Evolution is an un-proved theory – OK, but is the best we have.
QUESTION : Why has God not cured an amputation?
QUESTION : If God is Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent & loving, how dose anything bad happen to believers?
Reign Of Terror?
And How Many People Have Died In The Name Of Religion. The World Would Be A Better Place Without It.
For Atheism.
WOW, Christians are so witty and full of insight. Its not like there have ever been acts of violence, hatred, and utter horror have been committed in the name of ‘god’ and the church. Oddly enough. in history, many leaders like Pierre have done some pretty terrible things in the name of things less tangible than logic or reason. for instance Pope Gregory IX who decreed that it was gods will to begin a crusade against ‘infidels’. subsequently hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims alike were slain in the name of god. So I’ve been thinking maybe we should take a page out of Gregory IX book and just slaughter anyone who doesnt agree with us (peculiarly that sounds alot like the thesis of your criticism of Pierre).
I’ve never read something so irrational and extremist. Christians seem to be wanting to find a scapegoat for thier backwards and crazy beliefs. They make a commertial portraying athiests as evil terrorists! Yeah all evil is derived from not being christian. Yeah. And that bible thing ”and hath the fool said I do not belive in god” is proof? A crazy book written 2000 years ago is proof? All athiests are militant? There are no more militant athisests than any belief. JUst because nazis were not really christian, it does not mean that all athiests have evil beliefs. Just like the kkk. I do not belive that all christians a racist and ignorant, so why should they believe that athiesm is evil and militant.
[…] Christian leaders use Easter to attack atheism – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Anti-Atheist Christian TV Commerical Tiny Frog Recursivity: World Religious Leaders Praise Saudi King's Anti-Atheist Bigotry Charlotte Allen spews […]
OMFG bitcoin-cloud.me
SETUP TIME 1 HOUR ! bitcoin-cloud.me
bitcoin-cloud.me china larest bitcoin farm
Check out all of the different cloud mining packages that Bitcoin Cloud Mining has to offer you bitcoin-cloud.me
In less than 24 hours bitcoin-cloud.me, you can have everything set up and ready to go for all of your bitcoin needs. Find out more with Bitcoin Cloud.
http://bitcoin-cloud.me