Atheists in Foxholes

[Pat the stoner]

Nothing you said to me sounds like "pushing" beliefs on anyone. Being critical and even hostile to other people's beliefs is not the same. IMO, pushing beliefs on people is forcing someone to adopt a position based on that belief, sort of like how Christians try to use the police power of government to get others to behave the way THEY believe they should. Even the unveiled threat of eternal damnation is a way that people push their beliefs on others. I can't even think of anything equivalent that an atheist can do. I think we just look at the phrase a bit differently. That okay and now I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it is an accurate portrayal of reality.

The way you and I have communicated regardless of beliefs or non beliefs would not have to interfere in a conversation of unrelated issues .Forcing beliefs on others with police powers the way you describe to me is the same as fascism . To me beliefs are personal choices . I would like to think that regardless of the different choices we make , we can certainly communicate effectively and work toward a common goal . Even though we have different ideas and obviously feel different about this it has been an interesting conversation where no one had to abuse anyone to make their point .

 

[Pat the stoner]

I got off topic here but I'm sure that there are many athiests serving in our military these days . I would have no objection to serving with any of them who could do their job well . After all when I was over there in the mid east all I really wanted was to come home in one piece to see my family and get on with my life .

 

[mindphuk]

The way you and I have communicated regardless of beliefs or non beliefs would not have to interfere in a conversation of unrelated issues . Those are personal choices . I would like to think that regardless of the different choices we make , we can certainly communicate effectively and work toward a common goal . Even though we have different ideas and obviously feel different about this it has been an interesting conversation where no one had to abuse anyone to make their point .

Agreed. I always enjoy intelligent, thought provoking discussion, regardless of the position anyone takes on a particular subject.

 

[kindnugz]

Believe what you want or don't, but please just shut the fuck up and stop trying to force it on everyone. That goes for atheists, who have become society's foremost bigots. What happens when muslims start using the same tactics of atheists to force sharia law on us? Bosnia all over again biatch.

 

[afrawfraw]

"Old soldiers pray with their feet." - WWII Army saying.

 

[mindphuk]

Believe what you want or don't, but please just shut the fuck up and stop trying to force it on everyone. That goes for atheists, who have become society's foremost bigots. What happens when muslims start using the same tactics of atheists to force sharia law on us? Bosnia all over again biatch.

Here's someone else complaining of atheists 'forcing' people to do things. Got any examples? Sharia law by definition has the threat of force behind it. By what means can someone that disbelieves in gods are people being oppressed? You must stretch the definition of 'bigot' to the breaking point to claim what you do. By most accounts, atheists are far more tolerant of opposing views than most religionists.

 

[ChronicObsession]

bit funny, if believers were talking about atheists not fighting in a war and believers doing so.

one of the commandments of the jehova god, was "thou shalt not kill" (period)

which means that any christian, jew or muslim, fighting in a war.

is definetly fighting against his own god and not of god then.

one might say they are of the "opposite faith"

people of the devil, lying about their faith (duh of course, they are satanist lol)

Just so you know about current events, USA seems to be fighting many wars and they are mostly atheists and satanists, so where are the christians that make the wars? Looks like oil war to me buddy, not holy at all

 

[ChronicObsession]

Here's someone else complaining of atheists 'forcing' people to do things. Got any examples? Sharia law by definition has the threat of force behind it. By what means can someone that disbelieves in gods are people being oppressed? You must stretch the definition of 'bigot' to the breaking point to claim what you do. By most accounts, atheists are far more tolerant of opposing views than most religionists.

Hitler was an atheist. He turned out to be quite a douche, didn't he. Yea, he forced stuff on people, don't deny it

 

[cannabineer]

Hitler was a mystic ... he definitely believed in magical power. It's not easy being a mystic and an atheist at the same time. But that is neither here nor there in trying to ascribe Hitler's nastiness to his beliefs. More to the point, it does nothing to advance the argument that atheism is somehow the engine of bigotry or persecution.

"Stalin was an atheist."
"Stalin was a nasty piece of work."
Both statements are correct, but they do NOT allow the conclusion
"Atheism leads to people who are are nasty pieces of work."
cn

 

[mindphuk]

Hitler was an atheist. He turned out to be quite a douche, didn't he. Yea, he forced stuff on people, don't deny it

Whether Hitler was an atheist or Catholic could be debated (see http://nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm) but no one, not Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, or any other mass murderer you can name, has forced people to do things because of atheism, your premise is flawed. Yes, if one wants to become a totalitarian ruler, I suppose he could attempt to force atheism on people. Yet none of these tyrants wanted an atheistic society based on skepticism and the search for truth through rational inquiry, instead, they sought to replace religious belief in a god with nationalistic belief with them at the center in place of god. Did any of them use atheism as a justification for their actions? Were people killed "in the name of atheism" as you post attempts to imply? The answer of course is "no." Without a causal link between atheism and any atrocity, all you have is coincidental correlation. All of these tyrants so far were men, therefore men 'should shut the fuck up and quit forcing their views on everyone' if we are to use this logic applied to kindnugz original claim that I took offense to. If they were all left-handed, would you go back to persecuting lefties like they did back in the middle ages? (Look up the word 'sinister')

You've been on this forum long enough to have seen this type of claim debunked. You have no logical connection from atheism to totalitarianism or any other injustice for that matter, except by mere guilt by association, some people that do bad things are sometimes atheists, a claim I have no problem agreeing with. Trying to extend that to cause and effect is where you have trouble which is why there is a logical fallacy named after it, cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[ChronicObsession]

Hitler was a mystic ... he definitely believed in magical power. It's not easy being a mystic and an atheist at the same time. But that is neither here nor there in trying to ascribe Hitler's nastiness to his beliefs. More to the point, it does nothing to advance the argument that atheism is somehow the engine of bigotry or persecution.

"Stalin was an atheist."
"Stalin was a nasty piece of work."
Both statements are correct, but they do NOT allow the conclusion
"Atheism leads to people who are are nasty pieces of work."
cn

WHOA... WHOA... WHOA.... WHOA... WHOA...
hitler believed in the spear that punctured the side of Jesus Christ. He saught after that shit like it was an elephantine terd forged in solid gold that would give him super powers! How could anybody not believe in JC and still think a silly spear has super powers to conquer the globe?

 

[mindphuk]

WHOA... WHOA... WHOA.... WHOA... WHOA...
hitler believed in the spear that punctured the side of Jesus Christ. He saught after that shit like it was an elephantine terd forged in solid gold that would give him super powers! How could anybody not believe in JC and still think a silly spear has super powers to conquer the globe?

Exactly. So why in the world would you claim Hitler was an atheist? You just destroyed your own argument. Nice job.

 

[Pat the stoner]

Superstition of inanimate objects having powers is not really a good indication of religeous belief . Hitler sought out many objects he believed had powers . Also he was no christian , even if he thought of himself as one . I dont know of any thing that says he was - like an admission of it . But clearly his actions were not of a benevolent nature , I believe he was quite criminally insane whatever the case may be .

 

[ChronicObsession]

Superstition of inanimate objects having powers is not really a good indication of religeous belief . Hitler sought out many objects he believed had powers . Also he was no christian , even if he thought of himself as one . I dont know of any thing that says he was - like an admission of it . But clearly his actions were not of a benevolent nature , I believe he was quite criminally insane whatever the case may be .

Yea MindPhuck, what I was trying to say is, although Hitler didn't Pray/worship/ jesus christ like a standard christian, he rather just assumed it was an artifact with magical powers imbued from stabbing christ. So really it was a mixed bag of cultures this guy was grabbing from. So how could the spear have any power if christ was fake and gay, it just doesn't make any sense... I want to go to sleep now

 

[Pat the stoner]

It seems that any structured set of rules that teaches us moral values can be good . It's what people choose to adhere to that tells who they are . Clearly it can also be understood that persons who are atheists are not necessarily adherant to evil behavior . I can totally accept someone saying they just can't believe in what there is not enough proof of ,for them to believe it .

 

[mindphuk]

Superstition of inanimate objects having powers is not really a good indication of religeous belief . Hitler sought out many objects he believed had powers . Also he was no christian , even if he thought of himself as one . I dont know of any thing that says he was - like an admission of it . But clearly his actions were not of a benevolent nature , I believe he was quite criminally insane whatever the case may be .

You really should read the link I posted with the quotes from Hitler before you argue he wasn't Catholic. Once again for your benefit.
As to the rest of your post, read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy. Of course even that's beside the point because the claim (implied) was not that he wasn't a true Xian, but that he was an atheist and did those things BECAUSE he was an atheist.

Yea MindPhuck, what I was trying to say is, although Hitler didn't Pray/worship/ jesus christ like a standard christian, he rather just assumed it was an artifact with magical powers imbued from stabbing christ. So really it was a mixed bag of cultures this guy was grabbing from. So how could the spear have any power if christ was fake and gay, it just doesn't make any sense... I want to go to sleep now

Right, how could someone believe that the spear had magical powers if they are an atheist that doesn't believe Jesus was a god or at the very least, connected via supernatural means to a god? IOW, Hitler must have believed in the divinity of Jesus if he believed the spear had powers. Belief in Jesus is a pretty good indicator of someone that isn't an atheist.

 

[mindphuk]

It seems that any structured set of rules that teaches us moral values can be good . It's what people choose to adhere to that tells who they are . Clearly it can also be understood that persons who are atheists are not necessarily adherant to evil behavior . I can totally accept someone saying they just can't believe in what there is not enough proof of ,for them to believe it .

That is all most of us want.

 

[OldGrowAddict]

Sorry if a little off-topic.

The best tool we humans have to find any objective truth, is the scientific method:
"The chief thing which separates a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect."

And it's a very good tool, just look around - and you'll see the fruits of the scientific method: your computer, lightbulbs, AC, your car, etc - and the city outside your window. All made possible because of the scienctific method of finding true knowlegde.


After this, you might be surprised to know I do have a notion of "God":

To me, "God" is whatever made the universe happen.
Science know the universe had a beginning, and to me - the reason behind this beginning - the birth of the universe - is my god.
What made the universe happen? Whatever did - that is my God.

But this "God" could even be a mechanism! (to me God = X, and X is what made the universe).
It does not have to be a "person-God", nor does humans even have to be intented - for all I know humans are only a sideeffect of the universe.

So do I believe in God? No, but I often say "God is whatever was behind the birth of the universe, and claiming anyting more is just speculating"

(which is why I hate organized religion, they claim to much to be literally true)

 

[mindphuk]

Sorry if a little off-topic.

The best tool we humans have to find any objective truth, is the scientific method:
"The chief thing which separates a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect."

And it's a very good tool, just look around - and you'll see the fruits of the scientific method: your computer, lightbulbs, AC, your car, etc - and the city outside your window. All made possible because of the scienctific method of finding true knowlegde.


After this, you might be surprised to know I do have a notion of "God":

To me, "God" is whatever made the universe happen.
Science know the universe had a beginning, and to me - the reason behind this beginning - the birth of the universe - is my god.
What made the universe happen? Whatever did - that is my God.

But this "God" could even be a mechanism! (to me God = X, and X is what made the universe).
It does not have to be a "person-God", nor does humans even have to be intented - for all I know humans are only a sideeffect of the universe.

So do I believe in God? No, but I often say "God is whatever was behind the birth of the universe, and claiming anyting more is just speculating"

(which is why I hate organized religion, they claim to much to be literally true)

Science is truly a great way to find out objective truth about reality, yet there are many questions that science doesn't pretend to try to answer. So we still must use the tools of critical thinking which is more encompassing to me than skeptical thinking. Science also uses these tools, they go further with things like peer review and publishing. Philosophers also publish and are heavily criticized in publications much like peer review.

To me, assigning a natural process to the idea of god defeats the meaning of god and renders most discussions unavoidably unproductive. This is my biggest problem with pantheism. If we find, for example, that branes collide in higher dimensions and when they do, they create a universe or that black holes are spitting out new parallel universes and we are the product of one such 'white hole.' Saying that process is god avoids the problem that god has and that is "what created god?" If our goal is to question and find truthful answers, we cannot stop there. We need to ask "where did branes come from or did they always exists?" Can the multiverse be eternal? I think so, but does that lead to god? I don't think so. A non-intelligent creator is just as confounding as an intelligent one but there are fewer assumptions that need to be made for a non-intelligent source, so that's why I believe it.

 

[Pat the stoner]

That is interseting , the Hitler stuff about him being a christian . Obviously he felt very different about what that means - ignoring the golden rule . To me the golden rule is the greatest philosophy on interaction with others .