Why Aren't Atheists Pacifists?

CorporateWhore

LoveRock333 wrote:

I also recall a certain pope in WW2 who didn't help any of the Jews looking for sanctuary. Not saving people when you have the chance is similar to condemning them to death.

Also:Ever hear of the Crusades? Manys a christian willingly faught due to their faith against the "infidels" or Muslims, as they're known.

Your information on the pope is completely false. He did everything in his power to help the Jews.

I've already addressed the Crusades.

LoveRock333

CorporateWhore wrote:

Your information on the pope is completely false. He did everything in his power to help the Jews.

I've already addressed the Crusades.

My information on the pope comes from 1st hand accounts, those Jews lucky enough to escape.

It's well documented.

Sorry to shatter your "ideal" but that's how it went down. Thousands of Jews were turned away at the Vatican gates.

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

See, you're doing it again. You're painting Christianity as an ideal, rather than a reality. The truth is, yes, they misinterpreted the teachings of Christ, but they were still Christians. But you insist that if atheists were Christian, they wouldn't kill - that the Christian church doesn't allow that kind of thing to happen. But looking back, it seems to have allowed it to happen an awful lot, even if it is just because its members "incorrectly interpreted".

It's a comparison. What kind of killing happens when Christianity goes on a rampage and what kind happens when atheism goes on a rampage. It seems to me that whenever atheists have gone nuts, they've managed to bump of tens of millions whereas Christians couldn't scratch the surface on that number. Not to say it was right for the Christians to do it. But, without a moral compass, what is wrong for atheists? Nothing!

The more dangerous ideology is atheism.

CorporateWhore

LoveRock333 wrote:

My information on the pope comes from 1st hand accounts, those Jews lucky enough to escape.

It's well documented.

Sorry to shatter your "ideal" but that's how it went down. Thousands of Jews were turned away at the Vatican gates.

Going by that logic, the U.S. was also complicit in the holocaust. We know that's not the case, though.

You can't act on what you don't know. The church didn't know that Jews they may or may not have turned away would be killed. Either way, The Vatican is in the middle of fucking Italy. Are you serious? haha, you mean the jews were trying to find sanctuary in the middle of Fascist Italy? Right. Learn some real history and not that phony crap your commie-pinko public school teacher taught you.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

It's a comparison. What kind of killing happens when Christianity goes on a rampage and what kind happens when atheism goes on a rampage. It seems to me that whenever atheists have gone nuts, they've managed to bump of tens of millions whereas Christians couldn't scratch the surface on that number. Not to say it was right for the Christians to do it. But, without a moral compass, what is wrong for atheists? Nothing!

The more dangerous ideology is atheism.

And what qulaifies you to say atheists have no moral compass? That's bullshit right there. Right and wrong is not a strictly religious concept, you know.

Collin

CorporateWhore wrote:

It's a comparison. What kind of killing happens when Christianity goes on a rampage and what kind happens when atheism goes on a rampage. It seems to me that whenever atheists have gone nuts, they've managed to bump of tens of millions whereas Christians couldn't scratch the surface on that number. Not to say it was right for the Christians to do it. But, without a moral compass, what is wrong for atheists? Nothing!

The more dangerous ideology is atheism.

You think god or the bible or whatever is the only moral compass?

Anyway, show me when people were fighting for atheism or in the name of atheism?

LoveRock333

CorporateWhore wrote:

Going by that logic, the U.S. was also complicit in the holocaust. We know that's not the case, though.

You can't act on what you don't know. The church didn't know that Jews they may or may not have turned away would be killed. Either way, The Vatican is in the middle of fucking Italy. Are you serious? haha, you mean the jews were trying to find sanctuary in the middle of Fascist Italy? Right. Learn some real history and not that phony crap your commie-pinko public school teacher taught you.

Haha! Yeah, fascist Italy wasn't that big on killing the jews. Hitler was, but Mussolini had other things to worry about.

And the Vatican is its own country, had Mussolini invaded it, surrounded it or even looked at it twice, the public would throw him out personnally.

Maybe you need the history lesson. Tell me? Does you history book only go back 8000 years or the does it go all the way back to the Big Bang?

CorporateWhore

LoveRock333 wrote:

Haha! Yeah, fascist Italy wasn't that big on killing the jews. Hitler was, but Mussolini had other things to worry about.

And the Vatican is its own country, had Mussolini invaded it, surrounded it or even looked at it twice, the public would throw him out personnally.

Maybe you need the history lesson. Tell me? Does you history book only go back 8000 years or the does it go all the way back to the Big Bang?

The Vatican may have been its own country but it was completely surrounded by a massive military power. The Pope had to watch what he said about the Nazis b/c they just might be offended. Nonetheless, the Pope continued to speak against Nazism.

Better to hear it from a Jew who studies relations between Christianity and Judaism. Pius XII was a staunch opponent of the Nazis and secretly helped to save Jewish lives. This Jew knows a lot more about this than either of us:

http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/dalinframe.htm

Jeremy1012

CorporateWhore wrote:

Essentially, atheists have no place for love in their moral teaching. They cannot know what love is because they cannot access true love: God.

What a startlingly arrogant statement.

For a CHRISTIAN, true love is God. Please don't apply your sanctimonious patronising rhetoric to me. The less narrow-minded atheists such as myself, who accept that they don't know everything but still don't believe in God, are just a capable of finding true love in earthly things. We aren't all cold, scientific Dawkins-wannabes you know.

I am Jamie.
I am an atheist, as I regard atheism as disbelief in an omniscient, omnipotent, interventionist God.
I don't believe physics can answer all the words questions.
I believe in love and I don't believe emotions are merely chemical reactions in our bodies.
I care very deeply about the people that I love. I consider myself essentially as a pacifist. I would, however, fight to the death for the people I love.
I consider myself a spiritual person and don't believe that atheism and spirituality are exclusive.
I like art and poetry and find myself staring at the sunset and wondering how things like that happen.
And yet, I will never believe in God with a capital G.

CorporateWhore

Jeremy1012 wrote:

I am an atheist,
I believe in love and I don't believe emotions are merely chemical reactions in our bodies.

If premise 2 is true, then premise 1 is false.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

If premise 2 is true, then premise 1 is false.

Explain please.

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Explain please.

If you're an atheist, you cannot believe in the spiritual, supernatural, or anything besides science as an explanation for love. Otherwise, you're allowing room for the implication that there is a supernatural explanation as to why humans have feelings.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

If you're an atheist, you cannot believe in the spiritual, supernatural, or anything besides science as an explanation for love. Otherwise, you're allowing room for the implication that there is a supernatural explanation as to why humans have feelings.

A supernatural explanation doesn't necessarily lead to a god, at least in the way Christians define it. Just something beyond our understanding that science hasn't explained yet.

CorporateWhore

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

A supernatural explanation doesn't necessarily lead to a god, at least in the way Christians define it. Just something beyond our understanding that science hasn't explained yet.

Ah, but that is not what he said. He said science could not explain love.

You say it can. What a sad perspective of humanity.

Jeremy1012

CorporateWhore wrote:

If premise 2 is true, then premise 1 is false.

I can't help but note the hypocrisy here. Why would such a loving person as yourself condemn the entire population of people who don't believe in God as incapable of basic human emotions. You are essentially saying that a godless person is a robot, am I right?

Let me assure you, since you actually know nothing about me and are labouring under some bizarre delusion that you are inherently right because your belief system teaches you to allow no room for questioning said beliefs, that I am both an atheist and capable of love. It seems to me that the only person lacking any complex thought is yourself. Take your head out of your ass and open your mind to the possibility that you don't have all the answers.

Rhinocerous Surprise

CorporateWhore wrote:

Ah, but that is not what he said. He said science could not explain love.

You say it can. What a sad perspective of humanity.

What, being able to explain things lessens their value? Does the fact that we can explain how the human body works make it less impressive? No. Being able to explain emotions doesn't lessen their value, it just gives us a greater understanding of our species, which I can't see as being a bad thing.

meme

CorporateWhore wrote:

If you're an atheist, you cannot believe in the spiritual, supernatural, or anything besides science as an explanation for love. Otherwise, you're allowing room for the implication that there is a supernatural explanation as to why humans have feelings.

says who?

Jeremy1012

CorporateWhore wrote:

Ah, but that is not what he said. He said science could not explain love.

No I didn't.

and you suggested that an atheist cannot believe in a spiritual explanation of love? are you suggesting that the only possible alternative to a cold, emotionless world governed by physics is one governed by a biblical god? You are an exceptionally narrow-minded person. I am an atheist. HOWEVER, I accept that I might be wrong. There might be a God, I can't prove there isn't any more than you can prove there is. I am, however, in spite of my acceptance of fallibility, convinced that there isn't one. The day you can prove me wrong, I will accept my error with humility. I am, however, entirely confident that such a day will never come. You on the other hand are so supremely arrogant that any notion of error in your beliefs whatsoever doesn't even enter your mind.

So tell me, do you believe that all atheists treat their friends/family/partners as interests rather than loved ones? That they have a mere functional position in their lives? and I thought I was supposed to be the cynical misanthrope in this conversation...

Rushlimbo

CorporateWhore wrote:

No one was killing anyone in the name of Christianity in the crusades. Christianity teaches against such killing. The practitioners of Christianity did indeed kill.

The practitioners of atheism have killed in far greater numbers. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and the list goes on and on.

Christ said that you can tell the tree by its fruit. Likewise, you can tell Atheism by its fruits: immorality, social depression, a degenerate conscience...

Many of these traits are exhibited by ye most holy practitioners of Atheism everyday and yet you call it "freedom." It's not freedom when you're in the confining grip of immorality. Our consciences remind us what's right whether we like it or not.

The confining grip of immorality? Jesus, do you have a handbook of Christian zingers? If anything is confining it is religion.

Cosmo

All this bickering is kinda lame... Who's better... Christians or atheists?
The answer is Neither. There are a-hole Atheists and a-hole Christians. To claim the whole of one side or the other just shows how narrow-minded you are.
...
As for morality... do Christians get their moral compass from the Bible?
If so, does that mean that without the Bible... they are immoral?
What about Atheists with basic morals... where do they get their moral compass?
...
I believe the answer is morality comes from your humanity. You're supposed to be a good person, not because the Bible orders you to obey... but, because it's the right thing to do. And you shouldn't be good for a reason or reward... such as God is Watching or going to Heaven... you should just do it because it is right.
That's how I've decide to work the thing... because the only thing I know for sure... the people who tell me they "Know"... are basically full of shit.