"A World Without SecularismIf there is any remaining question regarding the irrationality of these people, this type of thing should squelch it. In fact, this particular program is getting some high marks from other Atheists. The type of inflammatory rhetoric used by Lyz Liddel seems to ring true in the heads of those with "no beliefs", who live in total peace and still fear the 89% of the population which is Theist. They are tortured in their own minds, and that is the only torture they will ever know until they manage to bring back secularism a la' the big dog Atheo-secularists who "rebuilt their cultures from the ground up" in the 20th century bloodbaths and pogroms that they are imagining in their "Imagine No Religion" trances.
We all know what a world without secularism would look like: lunatic fundamentalist presidential candidates; religiously-based law promoting torture and executions; pain and suffering tolerated because “it’s God’s will.” It’s a sucky place, no doubt. And politicians and citizens in the U.S. are hell-bent on taking us there. But how can we change it? We need to build a new culture from the ground up, educate our communities, provide a secular voice in local and national government. That’s a tall order – where do we even start?
With students.
Atheism is dangerous; it starts with no basis, adds the self-adulation to that, and then it seeks to convert others toward conquering the world in the name of that worldview. And I know that Atheism is a worldview: Liz Liddell said it is.
17 comments:
"the big dog Atheo-secularists who "rebuilt their cultures from the ground up" in the 20th century""
It's not atheism that's the problem. It's Totalitarianism that's the problem. It's Authoritarianism that's the problem. Totalitarianism is a "top down" system not a "ground up" system.
Pogroms?
The Catholic Church hounded the Jewish people.
Protestant Christianity was founded by a man who recommended killing Jews and burning synagogues to the ground.
Then Christians killed six million Jews in the name of Jesus during World War 2.
"The Jews are dangerous!" was their rallying cry. We must protect ourselves from the Jews!
Pogroms, you say?
You know nothing. The world is lucky you are a powerless little man. You have the same mindset that started the pogroms.
When Atheists claim superior morals (because they make them up themselves) it is obvious that they have lost touch with even recent history. Atheists do not have morals, they have tactics. Tactics which are based on the supremacy of their own thoughts over any others, especially history as knowledge. They even have a term for it: Consequentialism.
Totalitarianism is a natural product of the self-enamored auto-worship produced by Atheism. There is no one smarter than the person who utters those three magic words: “ain’t no God”. This easily acquired intellectual thrill-boost is accompanied by the realization that everyone else is stupid and needs the Atheist to run things for them: hence, the totalitarian thrust which is historically observable. The idea of utopia is an Atheist concept, one which is anti-Christian to the point of needing to eradicate Christians in order to obtain it.
The Atheo-Left is so enamored of itself as the repository of correctness that the denial of historical fact is deemed truth, in pursuit of the Atheo-Leftist ideal. The fact is, in the case of Hitler and the Holocaust, that Hitler told the remaining churches what they could and could not preach: Hitler became God in Germany. Those who refused to refrain from preaching Christianity were purged and some were martyred.
The urge toward totalitarianism in the 20th century was indulged by Atheists. Around 250,000,000 people were murdered by totalitarian Atheists. Entire cultures were eradicated in the deliberate starvations of the Soviet Atheists and the Chinese Atheists. Meanwhile, in our own culture the Atheo-Leftists fought and continue to fight against the Christians and their contributions which allowed the USA to continue to prosper while the Soviet empire starved, and the Chinese empire purged-starved, the Cambodian Atheo-Leftists killed most of the producers in their rush to produce the Atheo-Leftist paradise.
Yes, totalitarianism is a top down dictatorship; it is one which Atheists rush toward, unencumbered by any fixed moral constraints against what they think they own: superiority both intellectually and morally. But Atheists and Atheism are easily defeated in both areas, leaving only totalitarianism in their bag of tools.
” You know nothing. The world is lucky you are a powerless little man. You have the same mindset that started the pogroms.”
Here’s what I know. Atheists have no morals other than what they make up. 250,000,000 people were murdered in the 20th century by Atheists. Atheists have no case to make against that, so they try to pervert the facts and attack those who present them. The case against Atheism and Atheists is concrete.
Rachael,
I agree that totalitarianism is, indeed, "the problem". After all, "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
And traditional societies are certainly not strangers to tyranny. Nevertheless, as Stan has pointed out, history has already refuted the position that you present above. A modern atheistic tyranny is, by far, more dangerous than traditional abuses for the simple reason that the materialist worldview does not allow for objective morality.
If a wicked ruler/s is abusive, religion provides for a principled opposition. In the atheist universe, power is the principle.
"After all, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". "
God.
Satanist,
You are making stuff up again. God didn't say that, at least not according to the NIV Exhaustive Concordance. Maybe God said it to you, but he didn't say it in the Bible.
It was said by Lord John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.
Lord Acton also said,
"There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men."
Chris quoted it. I was giving an example of an absolute power that is corrupted absolutely.
To give context to Stan's weird outburst, I get the feeling Stan is replying to comments without seeing the rest of the conversation.
Satanist's remark does, of course, reveals the heart of the atheist worldview. To the atheist, absolutes of any kind must necessarily result in fanaticism and ultimately to oppression. So, what does he propose as the solution? Relativism- The denial of all absolutes by denying The Absolute.
Fanaticism and relativism are, of course, opposite sides of the same coin. And traditional metaphysics, if genuinely understood, rejects these twin pitfalls which stem from the modernist rejection of essences and ultimately of the Supreme Principle.
In fact, the modern and postmodern worldview is an abdication of the intelligence in the face of a reality it cannot predict and/or control.
Fanaticism and relativism, as explained by Mark Perry both parody objectivity in the sense that, with fanaticism, the advocate takes personal assurance from his deference to an exclusive dogma or set of beliefs that he will affirm with a vehemence that is indirectly proportional to his willingness to examine them whereas, in the case of relativism, the advocate's ostensible deference works through a species of reductio ad absurdum in which he seeks to discount not only his but, by "sympathetic" extension, any man's ability to know the Truth.
So it is that both positions entail a kind of false- and therefore self-righteous- humility (if this be the term to describe what amounts to a forfeiting of critical intelligence.)
Both poles, which are the true fruits of materialism, make an absolute of the relative/contingent and are equally self-interested.
Such is the nature of error.
I did misunderstand what was essentially a one word comment. It appeared to be an attribution of the quote, when it was actually an attribution of the meaning of the quote.
One thing is not relativist in Atheism, and that is the ability of Atheists to place judgment in the complete absence of a moral code, except for whatever they make up that day. Atheists place judgments right and left, and then complain about being victims. One of the most absurd judgments is that which they place on God, as if they were above God somehow... or... as if they were absolutely, absolutely certain that God does not exist.
The Atheist claim of having no god/God theory is followed by indignant condemnation of God's actions (as they see them in the Children's Bible Story book which they skimmed once, decades ago, or at least understand only at that level).
The concept of an evil God is a self-indulgent judgment, which is based on what? Atheists cannot show any consistent, much less concrete, moral system for themselves, much less to apply to a deity. So they take what they think are cultural standards, which are relativist, fluid, and not standard at all, and apply those, forgetting that consistency to a fixed moral theory is required if a just judgment is to be made.
But there is nothing fixed about Atheism's morals except for its void. So any judgment made by an Atheist is merely capricious pique. In other words an unjustifable and empty snit. For the Atheist, justice involves punishing whatever they don't like at the moment. That is an absolute consequence of relativism.
Atheists are not interested in justice as is based on consistent moral theory. (They have no consistent moral theory: the first reason that they are not trustworthy). They are interested in proposing themselves as the arbiters of justice, based on their personal opinions.
This is just one more reason why Atheists are dangerous, are seen to be dangerous, and are not trusted: they are not trustworthy in any sense. Judgmentalism based on personal opinion in a vacuum of morality is a highly visible indicator of personal superiority delusions and narcissism with outwardly exhibited arrogance.
I'm not an atheist.
I know. Nobody is.
You spend a lot of time hating and fearing people that ya don't think exist.
I don't hate or fear them. But there are justifiable reasons for people to distrust them. And after dealing with them here, I distrust them completely.
And I know they exist; it's just that they deny everything, especially that they reject any deities, so they try to deny that Atheism itself exists. It's just a void, a hole of non-existence if you choose to believe them.
Back in the bad ol' days when I was an Atheist, no one would stoop to denying their belief system; that is a new phenomenon which has taken Atheism from a philosophical stance to an intellectual gutter ball. The new generation of Atheists is maximally dishonest. And the general population sees the absurdity which the Atheists paint themselves and sadly, apparently believe.
This is what I love about you.
If you want atheists not to exist then they don't. If you want them to exist then they do.
You can write posts and comments about fearing atheists and then say that you don't.
Anything an atheist says is wrong even if it means you have to contradict yourself in the same thread!
It's awesome and I know why you do it.
You want to crush and destroy atheists and I can respect that. Hate is powerful! Hate is what gives you the dedication! I love that you are so dedicated that you are compelled to write posts. Mountains of posts. Hate and fear dripping off the screen! I feel like we are brothers united in hate. You worshiping the monstrous fake king and me worshiping the bringer of light and knowledge. "Hate" - the great motivator! How many hours have you spent doing this?
Satanist,
I was waxing cynical, taking the viewpoint which they give: Atheism doesn't really exist, it's just a void. And I see the source of your failure to understand, too, since you claim to worship the liar in charge of more lies.
I don't fear Atheists. I claim that they are dangerous. That doesn't mean that I fear them, it means that I understand their threat to society as their irrationality is spread.
I don't hate Atheists; but I do despise their lies. There is a difference. But I do understand why any demonstration of the fallacy of Athiesm is seen as hatred; it's the same idea that is used against criticism of Obama, or black "leaders", or Leftist iedologists, or of course Atheists: criticism is hate speech. Criticism is sexist. Criticism is fundamentalist. Criticism is [insert your favorite invective]. Criticism is a moral sin, there can be no criticism of the hallowed In-Group, unless it is immoral.
That's the only tool they (you) have, because there is no rational way in which actual disciplined logic can be defeated logically except to call it some sort of (shouted) immoral attack - a desperation charge from the guys with no morals. And no possible to mount a legitimate defense of their position.
Crush them? No. Reveal them for the intellectual and moral frauds which they (you) are, yep.
So when you have an actual case to present, let 'er fly. For example if you have a moral presentation for your belief system, let's hear it. If you have a rational case for worshipping Satan (if you really do), then present it. Otherwise your comments are just personal attacks. And those are cheap.
Please provide the names of the Atheist murders who killed 250,000,000 people. Was it one on one? Did 1 atheist murder a Quarter Billion people with his bare hands?
This is an astounding claim.
Primary source for this is the book by R.J.Rummel, "Death By Government", and his website.
The first category of only China and the USSR totals 263,324,000.
If you wish to argue that Atheism played no part in this, go right ahead.
Post a Comment