Even if we were to ignore the obvious crimes against humanity that atheistic communists have committed, atheism would be condemned simply by examining the devastation of the French Revolution.
Hi Brian Westley,
Buck up, Buttercup. If there are any athiets charities, apparently even you can’t find them. If you could, you’d stop the insults and red herrings and simply post their website links. Your petulance means nothing compared to actual physical reality. Why are you shy about proving your claims? Is it because even you realize you’ve been caught on a lie? Put down the bong and pick up a book.
Hi S Mason,
Here’s another of your increasingly obvious lies. You initially said that more than 50% of your colleagues at your volunteering situation were atheists. Now you say there were NO devoutly religious Christians there. Holy Mackerel! You’re insisting that the 4% of Americans who are atheists have descended upon that place and ALL are volunteering there? If that was true, they’d be NO WHERE ELSE. Like all atheists, you’d say literally anything to “fake” win an argument. Sorry! You lose. Logic, mathematics and empirical reality say you’re wrong.
Hi S Mason,
Like all atheists, you’re an accomplished liar. You’re not very good at it but you sure do poke along. You accused me of “shifting goalposts” but I’ve been supremely consistent in this discussion. I even clearly repeated my wager to you in my last posting. That’s EIGHT times I’ve reiterated myself and EIGHT times you’ve pretended I’ve somehow changed my mind. Just send the name of this nonexistent, generous athiet and I’ll send $500 to his organization. You can keep lying but I’m only going to respond with my wager which you have dutifully ignored while pretending I’m somehow the enemy. Your lies are the enemy you should be concerned with. When you lie and I point out your lies, I’m not insulting you. I’m only defending the truth. Atheists can never understand this.
Hi Brian Westley,
I’m sure you think of yourself as educated, rational and logical. That’s part of the problem.
You’ve also pretended to be a scientist and historian but you’re obviously neither. You pretended to be an accomplished logican amd that’s just risiable. The moment I question your fake credentials and your overinflated sense of self, you crumble and spew insults and even more nonsense.
You really need to read books rather than pretending to have done so as atheists often pretend to.
Kevin, I’m sure you don’t think of yourself as prejudiced. That’s part of the problem.
“You’re quite skilled at diverting from the truth—-you must have been an atheist for many years. “
Your insults are just so horrible. I really wonder what happens when you go to confession or take communion? What is in your heart?
“If you show me how I’ve changed the goalposts in my comments with date and time references,”
So lets get this straight: I call you on a straight fabricated misrepresentation and ask you for a date and time stamp. And you respond by asking me for a date and time stamp, and accuse me of being a liar? Again. For real?
“I’ll give an additional $500 to the imaginary atheist-led and inspired African charity which you’ve been lying about thus far.”
I think we all know there’s no $500, once or twice. Given I’ve provided the link to EducAid’s website, it’s a bit weird you keep backing into that corner.
And for accuracy: I didn’t say it was atheist led or inspired – you do love just making it up eh? – I said one of the founders is atheist, which you could have verified had you actually been interested in about 2 minutes. And 2 minutes later you could have been transferring that $500. But no. You’re not interested in the here truth at all: you’re just angry and wildly abusive.
Brian Westley said,
Kevin, you’ve shown your prejudice against atheists in this forum.
No, I haven’t. You’ve merely chosen to interpret my comments that way so as to leave me with no means of escape.
Reread the box above where we post:
“We encourage a lively and HONEST discussion of our content.”
Feel free to start telling the truth. You’ve been caught on at least a dozen lies thus far. Just send the name of this imaginary charitable atheist who runs a charity in Africa. That way, you’ll win this exchange and the kids will win $500. Why do you hate poor kids so much that you refuse to give them this gift which I openly and honestly offer. I’ll send you the receipt of my donation after you send the editor the imaginary atheist’s contact information.
You’re quite skilled at diverting from the truth—-you must have been an atheist for many years. If you show me how I’ve changed the goalposts in my comments with date and time references, I’ll give an additional $500 to the imaginary atheist-led and inspired African charity which you’ve been lying about thus far.
I’ve never changed my mind about the parameters of our wager. I’ll state it again very simply for everyone’s benefit herein: If you tell me the name of the imaginary, non-existence atheist who created/leads an African-based charity, I’ll donate $500 to it. I’ve never changed the “goals” in this challenge but I see you enjoy misdirecting other readers into thinking you’re the greatly put upon party here. If you don’t wish to post your friend’s name here, send the contact information to the editor of this newspaper. The webmaster’s address is email@example.com.
Hi S Mason,
You’re lying about most of your co-volunteers at IRC being atheists. This can be proven statistically. Only 4% of Americans are atheists. Statistically, atheists rarely volunteer time, resources or money in comparison to Christians, even on a per capita basis. For you to be in a situation where “most” (greater than 50%) of fellow volunteers are atheist would be phenomenally unlikely. That would nean, statistically, that there were a great number of OTHER volunteer situations that were bereft of any and all atheists since they were all congregating with you at IRC. You’ve been caught on yet another lie.
Ray, red herrings are a dishonest debating technique, and I see you’re still too hilariously incompetent to find atheist charities.
Kevin, you’ve shown your prejudice against atheists in this forum. “Some of my best friends are X” is the typical dodge.
“Well I’m not naming a friend on a public forum.”
“Ah! So were you lying before when you wrote: 1) You would do exactly that or 2) You specifically said you already had done so or 3) Now that you’ve changed your mind saying you never have or ever will?”
Could you quote the date and timestamp where I said I’d name my atheist friend, who is the founder of a charity?
If not, do you want to reflect on your behaviour at all?
“I wonder if you’re even cognizant of the lying nonsense coming out of you. “
I’m not. Honesty and integrity are important to me – as they are to my atheists friends in fact.
“Your lies are no match for the truth no matter how accomplished you are at that particular art.”
Hmmm… More Ray Mantua irony.
This is the text above the box we post into
“We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. “
Do you want to reflect on that before accusing anyone else of lying or being a hypocrite? Before just ignoring the posts they have made? Before accusing others of vitriol and anger, in angry and vitriloic posts? Just saying…
“We’re still waiting on your proof of supposedly charitable atheists. “
But I’ve never said Id give proof: I have tried though, but noting the way you move the goal posts and just ignore the posts that are inconvenient to you, I asked what would count as evidence for you.
Don’t both answering though: I find your approach to discussion to be fairly distressing. The constant abuse, the unfounded accusations, the misrepresentation (where did I ever offer to name my friend who is atheist, and founder of EducAid Sierra Leone) for eg – and yet you accuse me constantly of lying and hypocrisy.
I wonder what you think you will achieve by this behaviour?
“Do you also have proof of Bigfoot and UFOs? You’d have better luck with the later rather than the former.”
It’s a surreal position you are trying to hold on to. Despite it being explained to you that atheism isn’t like religion in that mostly it doesn’t organise and therefore isn’t capable of setting up charities, individual atheists are all over the charity world. I’ve worked with stacks of them. I used to work for the IRC (based on 42nd and Lex which is definitely not a religious NGO by the way) and most of my colleagues were atheists. Likewise in the Red Cross, MSF, Save, etc. In fact, the religious colleagues were in a minority and tended to work with the religious NGOs.
But why am I bothering? You just believe what you want to believe and abuse any you feel like. It’s been a surreal interaction.
“I know you won’t offer any proof in your next posting either”
Well – as there is no proof you’d accept, I suppose this is accurate.
“I’ve dealt with fundamentalist atheists before.”
Were you quite as profoundly unpleasant with them as well? I’d point out: you have absolutely no idea what my faith is – though I’ve told you explicitly that I am Catholic. You’re assertion that I’m lying doesn’t do you much credit.
Brian Westley said,
So, even given evidence of atheist charities, you have to try and negate even that much, using nothing more than your personal prejudice against atheists.
I have no personal prejudice against atheists. In fact, I’d be happy to count folks like Arian Foster among my friends. Anyone who is willing to think and is fair-minded starts from a very good place in my book.
Now atheism is perhaps a different story. I may well have a prejudice against that, though I strive to give it a chance to prove itself whenever I have the opportunity. But unlike many others (religious and non-religious alike) I don’t lock what I think about a personto their beliefs, non-beliefs, proclivities, tastes, attractions or fears, even if they want me to.
Why is it important to you to feel superior?
I have no such need. I am merely acknowledging reality. For instance, atheists will classify United Way as a secular charity. Yet in my area it grants money to many overtly religious charities (for specific purposes other than propagating their faith of course) as well as to other organizations that aren’t religious in name but would be very surprising to find are motivated by only a non-religious ideology given the religiosity of the region.
Hi S Mason,
We’re still waiting on your proof of supposedly charitable atheists. Do you also have proof of Bigfoot and UFOs? You’d have better luck with the later rather than the former.
I know you won’t offer any proof in your next posting either. I’ve dealt with fundamentalist atheists before.
Hi Brian Westley,
I find it humorous that you claim to be rational but refuse to even read the article Stagnaro wrote. You refuse to answer my direct questions. Your posts are full of hatred, ignorance, lies and empty boasts but you’ve convinced yourself of your moral and intellectual superiority. You even pretended to be a scientist with “proof” God doesn’t exist. You also claimed to know billions of atheist charities but refuse to show proof. But most humorously, you refuse to read my posts and instead have somehow “magically” umderstood them. When will we see the end of your rampant irrationalisms?
Hi Brian Westley,
You believe in luck but not God? Typical confused atheist. I’m sure you’ve convinced yourself that you are “rational” even though you lied about having studied science, logic and history. G.K. Chesterton often said, “When a man refuses to believe in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing but rather, he believes anything.”
Worse than believing in luck, you’ve convinced yourself that you’re rational and logical even though you’ve refused to be either. You’ve convinced yourself you’re educated though you lie about having studied the subjects in which you claimed to be an expert. You claim to be supremely charitable yet you act uncharitably. You live a delusion. Embrace Christ. Embrace Logic and Reason Itself.
Hi Brian Westley,
When you act foolishly, angrily, petulantly and ignorantly, you set an excellent example for atheists who wish to leave your ilk and come join the Catholic Church. That’s why I left. Many thanks for your efforts.
So far, you’ve proven you know nothing about science or logic or history. You offer nothing but insults and are devoid of facts. You’re clinging tightly to the myth of “atheist charities” but you won’t show a single link to their websites. Are there many? Send 50 links. Of course, you won’t find that many. How about 10? No takers? You can keep your lies, insults and self over-inflation but you’ll need to stand back as Catholics once again take on the heavy work of actually assisting the poor.
Ray, your red herring arguments are irrelevant and not worth reading, though I am amused by how your continued vitrolic remarks about atheists makes you such a good representative of Catholicism, and with any luck will dissuade some readers from becoming Catholic.
“I would wager that a great many people involved in “secular” charities or organizations that such charities provide grants to are indeed motivated by their faith in God.”
So, even given evidence of atheist charities, you have to try and negate even that much, using nothing more than your personal prejudice against atheists.
Why is it important to you to feel superior?
Dear Brian Westley, S Mason and all other atheist trolls:
Read this article (I know none of you will) and attempt at refuting it if you’ve convinced yourselves the Catholic Church is anti-science:
Dear S Mason:
“Well I’m not naming a friend on a public forum.”
Ah! So were you lying before when you wrote: 1) You would do exactly that or 2) You specifically said you already had done so or 3) Now that you’ve changed your mind saying you never have or ever will?
I wonder if you’re even cognizant of the lying nonsense coming out of you. Your lies are no match for the truth no matter how accomplished you are at that particular art.
Hi Brian Westley,
Questions are only very rarely fallacious and in Kevin Rahe’s case, absolutely not. You must stop pretending you’re learned in the rules of logic. The fact that you intentionally misapplied that designation to Kevin’s question means you have made a logical error called “Argumentum ad lapidem.” Before you speak/write, you must think and before you think, you must read. Atheists must stop believing that their ideas are golden and beyond criticism and that they excused from reading books.
And as to your own non sequitor, where are these atheist soup kitchens, charitable hospitals, food pantries, missions, retirement centers for the indigent poor, etc. built in the name of atheism that you “feel” exist. Just send us the links and have this over and done with. At best, you’re only arguing from a perspective of wishful thinking if you believe the landscape is dotted with atheist charities. I’ve only found two mentions of them on the Web and I have no way of verifying their existence. There are around 600 Catholic hospitals in the US alone along with 3000 pregnancy centers. This is only the barest fraction of Catholic philanthropy. There are no poor people in the world who say to themselves, “We’re hungry and we need medicine for our children! Let us alight to the atheists because of their wonderful philanthropic reputation!” However, the poor do that all the time with Catholics.
Brian Westley said,
And I’m not surprised that the reason YOU don’t see “anyone starting soup kitchens, charitable hospitals, food pantries, missions, retirement centers for the indigent poor, etc. in the name of atheism”—you simply haven’t looked for atheist charities.
I stand corrected. There is a charity that was started to help the homeless called Austin Atheists Helping the Homeless. However, it has since been renamed Austin Humanists at Work and “…has grown to include people from all walks of life. Volunteers include people who are atheists, agnostic, secular, freethinkers and even those who are theists.” There is also Atheist Centre in India, which apparently continues to operate under that name. However, it appears that the impetus behind the group was not so much a disbelief in God as it was the eradication of practices associated with some primitive religions that divided and unjustly affected a significant portion of the population, such as the caste system. In fact, Christianity could be as effective an antidote to such practices as atheism is.
There are others that aren’t expressly atheist but merely make the point that they aren’t religious or are secular in nature. However, as I pointed out earlier, “secular” is just the expression of a thing rather than the motivation behind it, which is necessarily something else. I would wager that a great many people involved in “secular” charities or organizations that such charities provide grants to are indeed motivated by their faith in God. Even the reason atheists and agnostics will often cite for being involved in charitable works – treating others they way they would like to be treated – is not a sentiment peculiar to atheism and agnosticism.
Some have argued here that atheism is not like a religion. It is puzzling, then, why others defending atheism would insist that it can motivate charitable works in some just like faith in God motivates charitable works in (at least some, but still not enough) religious folks.
@Ray Mantua on Wednesday, Nov, 23, 2016 11:28 PM (EST):
“We’re all still waiting on that name of the mysterious, non-existent charitable atheist you keeping lying about. “
Well I’m not naming a friend on a public forum (particularly to satisfy an appallingly rude and insulting poster), but I sent you the link to the website where he is clearly named and it’s set out. I think fairly clearly that you have absolutely no interest in knowledge in this matter or any others relating to non-belief. You could follow the link, have a look at the Charity and the founders and you’d see that every word I wrote is entirely accurate. And yet publicly you’ve called me a liar repeatedly. No shame at all? I think you owe EducAid $500. And I think you owe me an apology. A pretty profuse one. Not holding my breath. Hey ho.
“I’ve never met a polite atheist let alone a rational AND generous one.”
It’s funny: I’m struggling to believe you’ve ever looked. Its probably hard to get through those constant repetition of the ironic accusation that decent people are liars and hypocrites. Do you know what’s really funny: like so many angry Christians (why do we have so many in our ranks?) you clearly don;t actually believe half of our creed! You don’t believe you will be judged for your words or actions. You couldn’t possibly behave the way you do unless you have serious mental health issues perhaps.
“But, if you’ve found one, it’s as unlikely as bumping into Bigfoot riding a UFO. Produce the name or stop posting here. You’re a hypocrite and a liar.”
Hmm. More of those unfounded insults. You do like to dig a very big hole… There are loads of very decent atheists all over the place. To suggest there aren’t really does tell us about you not them.
“First law on holes: when you’re in one, stop digging” Dennis Healey
Hi Brian Westley,
You can stop casting your red herrings now. If you know any atheist soup kitchens, charitable hospitals, food pantries, missions, retirement centers for the indigent poor, etc., please don’t keep us in suspense. You’re pretending they exist whereas Catholics don’t need to pretend. We actually operate them. If you can’t find any, that means one or two possibilities 1) They don’t exist or 2) atheists have cleverly hidden them and have effectively made them useless. It’s useless to have a charitable organization that doesn’t act charitably. You can pretend they exist but if you can’t point them out, why pretend atheists are charitable?
“Can you offer any explanation for why an atheist would pretend that atoms are magical and that they can produce themselves and, in fact, the entire universe?”
That would be your mangled misunderstanding of physics.
“Science says they can’t.”
You don’t appear to be familiar with science. Do you even know about, say, particle-antiparticle pair production, or the hypothesis that the universe is a quantum fluctuation?
But did you have a point? Or are you just creating a parade of red herrings to distract from your vile behavior towards atheists?
We’re all still waiting on that name of the mysterious, non-existent charitable atheist you keeping lying about. I’ve never met a polite atheist let alone a rational AND generous one. But, if you’ve found one, it’s as unlikely as bumping into Bigfoot riding a UFO. Produce the name or stop posting here. You’re a hypocrite and a liar.
Hi Brian Westley,
Can you offer any explanation for why an atheist would pretend that atoms are magical and that they can produce themselves and, in fact, the entire universe? Science says they can’t. Why would atheists believe the universe started itself?
And, considering your penchant for very bad logic and your childish petulance at being shown you’re wrong, I dare tell you now to not use the uneducated atheist’s favorite logical fallacy, “Argumentum ad ignorantiam.” As you’re ever going to look it up and, instead, pretend you know everything about logic, I’ll give you as simple an explanation as possible herein. Hopefully you’ll understand it. Just because you don’t have proof of something, doesn’t mean it’s not true. Thus, I’m asking you to give an intelligent, sane, educated, rational answer to my question as stated above.
Kevin Rahe, your question is a non-sequitur. And I’m not surprised that the reason YOU don’t see “anyone starting soup kitchens, charitable hospitals, food pantries, missions, retirement centers for the indigent poor, etc. in the name of atheism”—you simply haven’t looked for atheist charities.
Brian Westley said,
”I’m not saying that atheists cannot feel such love, but if they do, it means they have found God.”
Can you offer any other explanation for an atheist finding another human being to have inherent importance beyond their physical existence?
I’m glad you corrected yourself. I want to congratulate you on your miraculous ephiphanic realization! Atheists don’t have the moral high ground when they insult theists (ie, Catholics…because you people never attack Jews and moslems.) When atheists let their emotions get the best of them, you’re being irrational and that also undermines your arguments, especially when you’re claiming others are being irrational. Furthermore, when you tell theists (ie, Catholics…because you people never attack Jews and moslems) they’re ignorant and should crack open a book while claiming that there’s some position held by theists that differs from yours, it reveals your lack of historical knowledge, the scientific method, empirical facts and a working knowledge of the rules of logic. Again, I wish to congratulate you because, other than atheists who convert to Catholicism, you are the first non-theist to come to a dim, rudimentary understanding of parity and the Golden Rule. This sounds like sarcasm but it’s sadly the truth. You can’t complain about people treating you badly if you and your kind do exactly the same thing to theists (ie, Catholics…because you people never attack Jews and moslems)
Oops, sorry, I just realized I directed my last comment to Brian when it was supposed to be for Ray Mantua. So sorry for the confusion!
Hi S Mason,
You asked if I’m able to post without being wildly insulting. Can you? It’s taken five of my promptings asking you to prove this ridiculous claim of yours about this mystical, magical, invisible generous atheist of whom you write and you’ve yet to give us his name. Why be shy? Why not prove what you have to say? I’ve never met a generous atheist but I’d like to finally meet one. You pretend to be Catholic but you write with an oily, atheistic cant. Very slow, measured and calculating like you have much to hide. Show us your cancelled checks along with the name of this mysterious, non-existent atheist of whom you brag. Send them to the editor of this newspaper to prove you are a good judge of generosity.
You’re wrong gain or, should I rather say, you’re still wrong. You’re falsely making a distinction between “making an argument” and “spouting emotionalist blather.” Whatever you did, you were illogical. If an ignorant person screams and yells in the street about some paranoid conspiracy theory, would he be justified in saying that he can’t be judged as “irrational” because he “wasn’t posing an argument?” That’s ridiculous.
If you hope to be rational one day, you can start right now by being rational in your every day life and stop making excuses for your bad thinking.
We’re all still waiting on that name of the mysterious, non-existent charitable atheist. Produce the name or stop posting here. You’re a hypocrite and a liar.
Ray Mantua, you’re still making the mistake that I was trying to present an argument—I wasn’t.
I also notice that you didn’t criticize Kevin Rahe for not offering support for HIS statement that I replied to. You aren’t interested in logical fallacies at all.
“Your ignorance is showing. Robespierre was a virulent atheist as were many of the Enlightenment “thinkers.” They specifically targeted poor Catholic peasants to kill in the Vendee Massacre…the modern era’s first genocide.
Enlightenment thinkers” destroyed Catholic cathedrals and protestant churches to recreate them as “Temples to Reason.”
Put down the bong and pick up a book. Put aside your wild hormone-infused emotions and study logic.”
Are you able to post without being wildly insulting?
“No. What I wrote was neither Christian nor adultlike. I was doing an impersonation of a fundamentalist atheist. I’m surprised you didn’t recognize it as I’m told I’m spot on.”
You’re deliberately being unpleasant about atheists? And think that’s fine? You may take it from me you’re nothing like the atheists I know.
“You keep avoiding offering proof of your crazy claims. Tell us the name of this imaginary atheist and his supposed African charity and I’ll donate $500 to them.”
Well – lets see. Look up educaid.org.uk – EducAid Sierra Leone – and their bank details are on their web site. I’ll let them know to expect the donation. I wonder if it will come? If you now don’t donate, but move the goalposts again…will you look at yourself?
“You will, of course, not provide this information thus depriving these mythical children of some much needed funds. “
Hmmm – lets see shall we.
“Instead, you’ll try to paint me as if I’ve somehow done something wrong by holdimg a mirror up to atheists for their historically unprecedented evil. Don’t worry…I can smell am atheist even over the Internet.”
I genuinely wonder if you might be sick?
Brian Westley: You do realize you can’t simultaneously be insulting and claim the moral high ground, right? Furthermore, letting your emotions get the best of you is rather irrational, so that also undermines your arguments, especially when you’re claiming others are being irrational. Furthermore, when you tell people they’re ignorant and should crack open a book while claiming that there’s some position held by atheists or scientists that “atoms are magical…” also reveals your lack of command of the facts, unless of course that was part of a straw man argument, but then with your exhibited command of logical fallacies that couldn’t be the case, could it? Anyhoo, instead of reading comments, you probably should be reading your bible, like maybe Matthew 5:16. James 1:19 might be good to review before you consider responding to them, too. 🙂
Hi Brian Westley. No. You’re wrong once again. You’re being illogical and therefore irrational when you make a logical error. You’re so far gone that you can’t even take instruction on thinking clearly whether you admit it or not. The fallacious error you made BEFORE is called “Argumentum ad lapidem.” It’s a common athiest mistake. And the fact that you refuse to recognize it means you are a misologist. (I’ll presume you’re ALSO not going to look up the word either.) You’re not allowed to pretend to be rational if you insist on being illogical. Further, calling me “ravenously bigoted” is yet another fallacious mistake on your part (common for atheists.) It’s called “Argumentum ad hominen.” You offer insults instead of an intellgent, sane and rational response. The fact that you “don’t care” is not only a lie but it’s yet ANOTHER fallacious error called “Argumentum no lo contendre.” No one cares if you don’t care. You simply said that so as to bow out of an argument you have obviously lost. I’ve pointed out THREE logical errors of yours and you only wrote a few lines. Even a crazy person can recognize his errors when they are pointed out. Why can’t you accept the fact that you’ve outed yourself as an atheist who is completely ignorant of logic? Respond back and I’ll point out your next error as well. Your ingnorace is no match for knowledge. Your “feelings” are no match for logic.
No. What I wrote was neither Christian nor adultlike. I was doing an impersonation of a fundamentalist atheist. I’m surprised you didn’t recognize it as I’m told I’m spot on.
You keep avoiding offering proof of your crazy claims. Tell us the name of this imaginary atheist and his supposed African charity and I’ll donate $500 to them.
You will, of course, not provide this information thus depriving these mythical children of some much needed funds. Instead, you’ll try to paint me as if I’ve somehow done something wrong by holdimg a mirror up to atheists for their historically unprecedented evil. Don’t worry…I can smell am atheist even over the Internet.
Your ignorance is showing. Robespierre was a virulent atheist as were many of the Enlightenment “thinkers.” They specifically targeted poor Catholic peasants to kill in the Vendee Massacre…the modern era’s first genocide.
Enlightenment thinkers” destroyed Catholic cathedrals and protestant churches to recreate them as “Temples to Reason.”
Put down the bong and pick up a book. Put aside your wild hormone-infused emotions and study logic.
Hi Brian Westley,
When you write comments like “How ridiculous” to someone’s posting without explaining yourself, you commit the fallacious logical error known as “Argumentum ad lapidem.” I understand your anger, frustration and abject ignorance as atheists only pretend to read books on logic but never actually do. I’ve literally placed logic (a subject I teach) books in their hands only for them to drop them on the ground. This is a typical anti-intellectual response from atheist narcissists who don’t want to be found out in their lies about not having read books. But, as no gives a fig about your emotions during a rational argument, which only recognizes the rules of logic, atheists will always lose. They will always whine. They will always hurl invective ignoring facts, logic, science and history because your selfish emotions are precious to you. Unfortunately, the feelings of other people are never precious to you. That’s why you and other fundamental atheists are lacking in compassion. Why are you lacking in compassion, you ask? Because if you were brimming with it, you misanthropes would build a couple of hospitals and schools for poor kids.
Hi Chris Weiss,
I want to thank you for a clear-headed, intelligent posting. You are incorrect but I appreciate you being even-handed and expressing your opinion without the vitriol and misology of other posters.
Communism is definitely a political philosophy but the same can be said of Christianity. That is, Christianity has a political function or aspect also. If atheist communists merely wanted to help people in dire need, they would simply have given their money to the Church which has a 2000 year old tradition of helping the poor and representing their needs to their employees. In fact, St John “Don” Bosco created the first labor unions as a result of the inequalities and injustices from Industrialization.
A clearer understanding of communism which helps to explain their moral inconsistencies is that atheists, like Marx and Engel, wanted to emulate the good work done by the Church and thus created a secular version of the Church’s structure and organization. Perhaps they did so because they wanted to be better represented in politics. Perhaps they simply hated the Church. The result is communism and the horrors that have resulted from it being unleashed upon an unsuspecting world.
Ray Mantua, you are correct that many people – including Christians as well as atheists/agnostics – erroneously consider “secular” to mean “atheist.” “Secular” refers much more to the expression of a thing than the impetus behind it. For instance, one could reasonably argue that the majority of our laws were informed by a Judeo/Christian moral code. But all of those laws are written(i.e. expressed) in secular terms. That is a good thing because it means that they can be understood and found agreeable by people of other religions, or who have no religious beliefs at all. It is a peril, however, when enough people forget or outright reject the moral code that informed those laws, which then makes those laws look merely arbitrary.
Dear S Mason,
Having had a great deal of experience with dealing atheists unaccustomed to telling the truth, I reread your whiny posting. It’s odd in the extreme that you refused to name any of the schools or other organizations financed/operated by atheists. Name them here and I will research what you claim and send my results to the editor of this newspaper. If you are correct, I’ll become an atjiest. If you are lying or exgeratimg or incorrect, you get the honor of becoming Catholic. Deal? If not, peddle your emotionalist nonsense elsewhere.
Dear S Mason,
From your stilted posting, one would think that all charities in the world were run by atheists. Do you have any proof of your claims? Please send the cancelled checks that the legion of supposedly charitable atheists to the editor of this newspaper. If you don’t, there’s no way to verify your grandiose claims. If you don’t, then you don’t have a leg to stand on. No intelligent, sane and sober person can deny Catholic generosity. If you have proof of your claims, don’t be shy about sharing it with the rest if us. Thus far, you’ve cherrypicked some anecdotal data. That’s TWO logical errors in the same sentence. You obviously don’t understand how to reate a logical statement because very few, if any, atheists have ever studied logic. Further, very few, if any atheists, will admit the truth about their abject ignorance of logic.
Communism is a political philosophy for which atheism is a part of it, but atheism is not the reason communism exists. Similarly the other supposed “atheist” atrocities were committed by points of view that did not spring from atheism. Instead, these political positions adopted atheism. This is very different from religions that exist because of their belief in a god or gods. Without this belief, these religions would not exist. Communism could exist with or without atheism. One could argue Jesus’ selflessness could be a basis of the communist axiom: to each according to his need and from each according to his ability.
Consequently, the author has made some very basic logic errors in his irrational attacks on atheism.
” I’m not saying that atheists cannot feel such love, but if they do, it means they have found God.”
Dear Brad Feaker:
Like many confused atheists, you are equivocating (a logical fallacy) the words “secular” and “atheist.” Our nation’s highway system is secular but that doesn’t make it “atheistic” That would be ridiculous and stupid to support that argument.
Your second error is arguing that secular charities aren’t interested in peddling dogma. How about Planned Parenthood? They peddle the unscientific idea that babies aren’t human. PETA insists that cockroaches are the equal to human beings. American Socialists insist that socialism has never killed anyone, EVER. That’s first-class secular twaddle.
S Mason: With all due respect, I don’t see anything logically coherent in anything you said. You basically regurgitated several of my points and then deflected them rather than engaging them. Case in point: Of course there aren’t any charities run by people who believe in fairies because there aren’t any adults who do believe in fairies—only young children, and they, by and large, don’t engage in much community organizing. That is a textbook example of a false analogy. (OK, I know someone is going to make a snide remark equating belief in God with belief in fairies [or the flying spaghetti monster or some such nonsense], but that would just go to show how uninformed such a person would be about Christian philosophy.) Another case in point: You said, “And your point is? Everything used to be Christian. Go back not too far and it was positively dangerous not to be. It tells us nothing.” My point would be many if I had more than 400 words to comment, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll just echo your own words: “Everything used to be Christian.” That’s one of my points: Christianity built Western civilization, including its charity infrastructure. Many people whine and complain about how bad Christianity is, yet I’ve never heard any of these people say they’d prefer to live in North Korea or in some other place on earth void of a Christian heritage. They have a philosophy of nonfalsification with regard to their beliefs about Christianity. If they see anything bad they don’t like in our cultural heritage, then it’s *because of Christianity.* On the other hand, if they see something they like, then it’s *in spite of Christianity.* Bottom line, in their thinking, Christianity has never done and can never do anything right.
You have slurred atheists with your article – and reassured posters like Ray Mantua here, who has expressed ignorance, hatred and vitriol repeatedly – despite challenges on the facts. This is not my faith. And yet – you at some level, are guilty by encouraging this.
I think you owe it to all of us, Catholics and atheists alike, to apologise and clarify. Please speak out. The anti-atheist sentiment, expressed so frequently, with untruths and misrepresentation, are not Christian. Please speak up.
Bill Gates is an atheist and runs the largest charity in the world.
The Gates Foundation does some good things, but the problem with humanitarian charities that see only physical human bodies in need and not souls with eternal dignity is that they begin to see people themselves as a problem. The natural thing to do in the face of a problem is to eliminate it, and we see that in the organizations the GF gives grants to, which are heavily skewed in favor of those that provide “family planning” services, for instance.
Brad Feaker said,
Anyone ever heard of Doctors Without Borders? Totally secular.
And again we see an organization that has run off the rails ideologically by going beyond merely treating adverse medical conditions and preventing disease – i.e. providing actual health care. In fact, this one doesn’t even respect medical discoveries made in the 19th century, namely those that identify the point at which an individual human being’s life begins.
Your stifling ignorance and narcissism betrays you.
Here’s some education for you: Theism is the REJECTION of the atheist magical, anti-scientific thinking that the universe simply popped into existence—-nearly EVER theist will tell you this. atheists have failed in their attempt at their pseudo-scientific, misological, anti-intellectual idea that “atoms are magical and given time, anything will happen!” If you have proof of this ridiculous, anti-scientific and illogical claim, don’t be shy about sharing it with the rest of us.
The supposed atrocities committed in the name of Christ to which you refer pale in comparison to the 250 million killed by atheists in the past 250 years. Remove the beam from your own eye before you attempt at taking the speck out of ours.
atheists spend their time pretending they’ve not committed horrific evil. That twas the title of Stagnaro’s article—-one you’ve apparently not read. But your ignorance didn’t stop you from expressing your ridiculous, under-educated ideas.
Read books on history, science and logic instead of lying about having done so. Your ignorance is no match for actual knowledge.
The title of this article asks a question that its body doesn’t address. The author himself points out the flaw in his own reasoning. Atheists (and theists) have killed in the name of many philosophies and ideologies, many of those(like Marxism) virtual or actual religions themselves, but that is the point, they killed in the name of those movements, very seldom in the name of atheism itself.
Atheism is the lack of religion. It is only the lack of religion. The ideologies listed in the article lack a belief in God. Europe doesn’t follow baseball. Saying that these philosophies killed “in the name of atheism” is the same as Europe has killed in the name of rejecting baseball. Correlation is not causation.
If the question was do atheists kill in the name of beleifs and ideaologies, you would have made a strong case. Atheism is no sign of being more or less bloodthirsty, but it has seldom inspired murder it its name.
And your entire post is another religious falsehood.
Anyone ever heard of Doctors Without Borders? Totally secular. Foundation Beyond Belief? The Todd Stiefel Foundation. Yeah, there are no secular charities. And the difference I appreciate about secular charities is that they aren’t interested in peddling dogma – just helping their fellow humans.
The reason we don’t see anyone starting soup kitchens, charitable hospitals, food pantries, missions, retirement centers for the indigent poor, etc. in the name of atheism is that these things first require love. I’m not talking about what the world calls “love” these days, which is as much about getting something as giving something, but an altruistic love that lets one see a person as something more than what might be a rather pathetic physical existence. I’m not saying that atheists cannot feel such love, but if they do, it means they have found God. In fact, I would wager that the discovery of this love in themselves is in many cases what drives those who become religious to do so, for an atheist mindset offers no logical explanation for it.
I’m Atheist and I’m really happy with my life., The Pope said we can be saved (I don’t care to be saved btw, I don’t believe in the afterlife, but putting it in the Hitchens words I don’t want to live forever in a Celestial North Korea Christianity It is the wish to be a slave in the afterlife, no thank you., here in Phoenix,AZ there’re a lot of hospitals with the St on the name, but it doesn’t make it free., actually are very expensive so I don’t see the point on saying that an hospital having St is helping people., its not it’s business. Goodwill is not free, and not cheap also., you can find better clothing at Ross and is new., University system before the enlightenment was garbage., before Galileo and Issac Newton, we didn’t know anything about science., we knew some math and that’s it., believing in an all powerful men up in the sky watching you doing everything you do, at the same time that other 6 billions of people is just silly.
“Ian, your post just validates my point—that one must Google atheist charities to find them. “
But you won;t find many charities organised by people who don’t believe in fairies either. And yet the aid world is stuffed with atheists. I know – I’ve worked in it. So many of my co-workers are quiet atheists.
“You won’t see too many of them in your neighborhood, and for every one you do find, you’ll find seven or eight Christian charities. “
It’s a false claim: atheism is the position of not finding the evidence sufficient. That’s it.
“Even many secular charities”
Secularist and atheist are radically different things: let’s not confuse them. Many religious people see that secularism is a very good thing, as it protects us all, and gives all of us the freedom to practice our religions freely.
” (e.g., the Red Cross and Goodwill) were originally Christian affiliated before they became more secularized. “
And your point is? Everything used to be Christian. Go back not too far and it was positively dangerous not to be. It tells us nothing.
“Just ask yourself why so many hospitals have “St” in their name (St. Mary’s, St. Joseph’s, St. Christopher’s). The same is true of the university system. It grew out of Christianity until it became secularized after the Enlightenment. There’s simply no denying that the charity infrastructure in the Western world grew out of the gospel. “
Well – there is plenty of denying it. But I suspect it’s pointless: are you interested in new information?
The incorrectness of your remark about Bill Gates is matched only by its ignorance. First, the Catholic Church is the largest philanthropic organization in human history. Catholics operate 125,000 hospitals and clinics and 135,000 schools for poor kids. Do you believe Bill Gates does that? If you did you’d be wrong AND crazy. Second, Bill Gates never contributed a penny until he married his devoutly Catholic wife. Third, exactly how many atheists do you know who contribute to Gates’ foundation? Do you? If you do, send your cancelled checks to the editor of this newspaper so we can finally see an example of atheist generosity. As everyone knows, it’s easier to find a two-headed Republican unicorn than to find an atheist hospital, school for poor kids, food pantry or breadline. Fourth, why aren’t you ashamed of not being to find more atheist charities? Fifth, why aren’t you ashamed of not contributing to Bill Gates’ foundation? Sixth, what have you done to help the poor and why do you feel it necessary to lie about having done so?
@ray mantua – continued, because this really matters.
“You lose. You lose because you people refuse to see God in the poor and suffering. “
Now you are so offensive it’s horrible. This isn’t a playground. This isn’t a kindergarten. You are an adult throwing insults. Whether you are right or wrong, as a Catholic you really should not do that. AS it happens, it’s easy to demonstrate that there are things you don’t know or don’t accept to be true. The charity world is full of quiet atheists. That you don’t know so, is your issue.
I don’t suppose it’s going to have any impact on you but: I am on the board of a charity providing education to the poorest in Sierra Leone and have been for over 20 years. We run a series of schools in Freetown and the provinces.
One of the founders is an atheist. He donates significant amounts of his own money – and he isn’t particularly wealthy – to helping those children. Like every other atheist I know he is a principled man, who happens to find the evidence for gods to be insufficient. That he is fairly typical but you don’t know it, speaks to your lack of knowledge (there is a word for that).
“Your apathy poisons and deludes you. Help poor people and God will introduce Himself to you. The more you refuse to help others, the darker your lives become.”
You are deluded: sorry – but really – really you are just making it up now and you need to educate yourself, and stop the insults to good people. You may perhaps find them to be reassuring or something. But the inaccuracy combined with the insults hurts all Catholics. Facts do actually matter. There are many very good atheists. Principles, ethical people, who you have just insulted without any kind of actual thought.
“I doubt you’ve read this comment all the way through but, if you have, avoid the typical atheist snarkiness. Read a book instead.”
I need to point this back at you: can you read this to the end? Can you investigate and see whether your claims are actually true or not? And can you see the extreme snarkiness in your offensive insults towards a group who just happen not to share our faith?
I note how many posts you have on here – so atheism is clearly a subject that exercises you extensively. I think though that you don’t actually know anything about it?
Hmmm… I wonder what’s coming next? You clearly think atheists are a homogeneous group. That’s just profoundly wrong. And any simple examination would show you that. But let’s crack on.
“Despite your fondest desires and wildest daydreams”
So still at it. You need to actually learn something about atheists. They aren’t a) our enemies, or b) a homogeneous group. There is no Atheist creed. There is no common doctrine. They just find the evidence for gods to be insufficient. Claiming otherwise, doesn’t change the facts: it is just a bit revealing about you.
“there are no atheist hospitals, hospices, leprosariums, breadlines, food pantries, schools for poor kids, retirement centers for the indigent poor, youth centers, etc….NONE. “
Why are you shouting?
So you continue to completely miss the point. There are no hospitals organised by people who don’t believe in Santa either. It isn’t difficult to understand what atheism is – and, whether you like it or not, it’s nothing like what you think it is. But you do have to at least try to understand what it is. It requires engagement and putting yourself outside your comfort zone.
There are vanishingly few actual atheist organisations, organised around being atheist. And where they do exist they are typically either about trying to set up religious like structures of social support without religion, or completely political, aimed at trying to get religious influence out of the political sphere.
“You can pretend they exist but that’s irrational. And as to Oxfam, Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc, they were all started by Christians. Sorry! “
This isn’t a question of rationality: it’s a question of evidence. If I offered evidence that there are charitable organisations started or run by atheists, would you apologise for your outburst and assertions? After all, if you are wrong, you’ve been pretty offensive, right?
Ray Mantua, you attempt to berate atheists while spitting poison about them. You can’t even see yourself.
So i guess you really don’t like Communism?! Neither do I. That’s where the agreement and the point you were trying to make ends as you are building the vaguest of strawmen while missing the point entirely.
Communism is an ideology, not a religion for the simple fact there is no supernatural aspects to it. It’s the same fallacy perpetrated by someone calling a religion (Christianity for example as that the first example i can recall of this) being called a philosophy, as there is the guy who rose from the dead could perform miracles and the like.
Crimes performed in the name of communism are crimes performed in the name of Communism. Atheism doesn’t have an ideology. An ideology can be atheistic but that’s not the same as there being an atheist ideology.
Ahteism is a stance on the belief in a deity—and absolutely nothing else. Nothing. An atheist can be a humanist just as he/she can be a misantropic sadist. The only commonality being neither of the two have a reason to believe there exists a deity.
A stance on a single question does not an ideology make.
@Fr Jason Clark
“Mr Cooper, where in the writings of the New Testament are Christians encouraged to hate, condemn, and kill others? Please be specific.”
But Jason Clark, you have misrepresented what Mr Cooper said, right? You’ve fundamentally misquoted him.
Presumably from your title, you’re a cleric of the RCC: doesn’t misrepresntation come high on the list of things we are not supposed to do? I suggest you need to apologise.
The discussion has digressed, but I feel compelled to respond to this charity question. Just as there is no killing in the name of atheism, there is no giving in the name of atheism or as a means to promote atheism via a charity. The so-called atheist charities are not really atheist charities because no such thing is needed. Atheists don’t give as a means of appeasing a higher power or to promote atheism. We give to help. In contrast, religious organizations use charities as a PR vehicle, and a means to proselytize to those who are being helped (the argument has always been that’s it’s a small price to pay for help, but then people who need help shouldn’t have to pay anything). Case in point, the arguments about how many religious charities there are and how much easier it is to find them. Yes, because that’s the real point of having them, isn’t it? That’s why it’s being brought up in these comments. The so-called atheist charities, in contrast, are just charities that don’t appear to have any clear political or religious agenda, so they’re for any atheist or anyone actually who just wants their donations to go to help people with no strings attached, no preaching or what not. A so-called atheist charity then is just a true, pure charity and yes, sadly, such altruism is rare.
Despite your fondest desires and wildest daydreams, there are no atheist hospitals, hospices, leprosariums, breadlines, food pantries, schools for poor kids, retirement centers for the indigent poor, youth centers, etc….NONE. You can pretend they exist but that’s irrational. And as to Oxfam, Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc, they were all started by Christians. Sorry! You lose. You lose because you people refuse to see God in the poor and suffering. Your apathy poisons and deludes you. Help poor people and God will introduce Himself to you. The more you refuse to help others, the darker your lives become.
I doubt you’ve read this comment all the way through but, if you have, avoid the typical atheist snarkiness. Read a book instead.
@“5. Atheists who make nonsensical, ahistorical and misological claims such as this one, prove they’ve never truly examined their own community’s behavior”
And so you betray yourself. Atheism really does not have a community. I’ve tried to explore it. Atheism includes leftists, libertarians, Maoists. You prejudices really do betray you.
Here’s some education for you: atheism is the state of finding the evidence insufficient. We can choose to disagree and find the evidence sufficient, but as you try to disassociate Christians from the atrocities committed in the name of Christ, and slur all atheists with the atrocities committed by atheists, your (unbelievably see-through) argument falls apart.
We have to do better than this: it is utterly ridiculous.
Dear atheist vfilipch and those atheists who might unthinkingly agree with him…
“Atheism itself contains no ideological components.” This statement is patently and demonstrably false. If it wasn’t, you people would be a great deal more pleasant and a lot less murderous.
As Fyodor Dostoevsk pointed out, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” This is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in that the fact that atheist monsters have killed 250 million people in the past 250 years. The Encyclopedia of War says that only 7% of wars in world history were fought for religious purposes. Thus, secularists, using godless reasons, have perpetuated an outrageous amount of evil upon the world. If you were theists, you would have only killed a tiny fraction of that number. Your atheism teaches you that there are no moral standards and THUS you kill with impunity and then ignore the results of your own depravity. Congratulations on the evil you’ve committed. I presume you hope to be lauded for it. Otherwise, you should stop instantly. And I cannot stress this enough READ A BOOK BEFORE FORMING AN OPINION OTHERWISE YOU MARK YOURSELF WITH THE STENCH OF IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY.
Bill Gates is an atheist and runs the largest charity in the world.
Ian, your post just validates my point—that one must Google atheist charities to find them. You won’t see too many of them in your neighborhood, and for every one you do find, you’ll find seven or eight Christian charities. Even many secular charities (e.g., the Red Cross and Goodwill) were originally Christian affiliated before they became more secularized. Just ask yourself why so many hospitals have “St” in their name (St. Mary’s, St. Joseph’s, St. Christopher’s). The same is true of the university system. It grew out of Christianity until it became secularized after the Enlightenment. There’s simply no denying that the charity infrastructure in the Western world grew out of the gospel. Animal charities? I love animals, but I don’t put them on equal footing with humans. Yes, I’m a speciesist. Harambe was a magnificent animal, but his life was not as important as that little boy’s.
Atheism itself contains no ideological components. It doesn’t tell there is One Right Way To Live (politically, morally, economically, etc), while every ideology does, including every religion. To blame atheism for crimes committed by followers of any ideology is as idiotic as to blame milk just because most of such followers had been drinking milk.
If any of you think you’ve contributed more than the average Catholic to charity, feel free to send the cancelled checks to the editor of this newspaper to prove it. I’ll send my most generous contributions. Whoever is the least generous gets to convert to Catholicism.
It’s tiresome to listen to atheists brag about how wonderful they without proof thereof. This is the time to put up or shut up. I’ve got my cancelled checks ready. Send yours to the editor of this newspaper alomg with your name, address and contact information. He can identify you by your user ID. I won’t run from this challenge. I’ll go so far as to challenge any three of you morally-apathetic cheapskates. If three of the atheists who have thus far whined making grandiose claims on this page have collectively contrubuted more than I have in any given year, I’ll convert to atheism. If I’ve contributed more than you three whiners, you all get the honor of converting to Catholicism…a truly philanthropic organization. If you don’t wish to take the challenge, that would mean you are all narcaistic talk and no philanthropic action.
I stand behind Stagnaro’s comment on atheist charities. Where are the atheist hospitals, breadlines, soup kitchens, retirement centers for the indigent poor? Atheists are quick to glom SECULAR institutions as if they had actually planned and financed them on their own as Catholics plan amd finance our own hospitals, et al. This is ridiculous. Are you also suggesting that our nation’s highways are atheistic because driving is an atheistic endeavor and atheists contribute ONLY 5% of their total cost of construction and upkeep? That would meam Christians contribute 85% of the cost of “atheistic” institutions. Are you people crazy? Are you suggesting that driving a car is an atheistic endeavor? The fact that this has to be explained to you proves you are incapable of thinking logically. And the halfbaked idea that all hospitals are “atheistic” because science is “atheistic” is ludicrous. Where is this imaginary science book that atheists ARENT reading that says science is atheistic? Put down the bong and pick up a book instead of defensively amd narcissistically lying about having read a book.
Cyril, you have to use google to find ANY charity whose name you don’t already know, so the idea that this shows anything at all (other than your bias) is complete nonsense. Besides, some of the best rated charities are secular. Here are just a few: Oxfam, the Animal Welfare Institute, Friends of the Earth, Human Rights Watch, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child.
* Counterpoint:” Hitler’s atheism came out in the Nuremburg Trial. You can read the transcripts if you want to find the truth but atheists NEVER READ BOOKS. There’s the citation! But you don’t care because you think yourself intelligent BY REFUSING TO READ BOOKS. Very irrational of you. You lose the point.
* Counterpoint:” Hitler’s atheism is best supported by the fact that his two chief aides, Heydrich and Himmler, the architects of the Final Solution, were both hardcore atheists. It would be odd in the extreme to think that a “devout Catholic” you pretend Hitler to be, would hobnob with two atheist genocidal maniacs. The fact that you didn’t know any of this AGAIN proves you’ve never read a book on the subject but instead “feel” your angry, self-righteous ignorance is somehow a match for actual knowledge. That’s irrational and indicative of atheist magical thinking. You lose the point.
* Counterpoint:” Here’s another article you’ll refuse to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
You lose the point.
*Final Counterpoint *: Nobody “hates” us? You hate books, You hate to be shown you are wrong. You hate anyone who disagrees with you. Have you had intimate dealings with every atheist in the world? If not, from whence does your magical knowledge of the motives of all atheists in world history come?
You foolishly, stupidly think that atheists who kill Christians “love us?” Put down the bong and pick up a book. You lose the point.
* Counterpoint *: You make a very poor point when you lump islam and jihadists with Christians and Christianity. Most anthropologists identify islam as a socio-military complex with a superficial metaphysical overlay akin to Nazism and Pre-War State Shintoism. In others words, they are secularists intent on creating a secular hell on earth…just like atheists of the 18th through to the 21st centuries. But, of course, as an atheist, you “feel” you can simply look at a book and “magically” absorb the information. Thus, far, considering your “points” you’ve pretended and have irrationally convinced yourself that you are an expert in history, anthropology, logic, religion and theology. You obviously know precious little about these subjects. If not, cite your bibliographic sources like a Christian instead of lying about having read books like an atheist. You lose the point.
Here are some more things you’ve gotten wrong. You will ALWAYS be wrong unless you read books. You will even ignore my obvious, logical and intelligent urging you to read books. You know noting about history UNLESS YOU READ BOOKS:
* Counterpoint *: The article you OBVIOUSLY refused to read specifically pointed out that if atheists wish to demonize theists (i.e., Catholics) they’ll need to first do penance for the evil they’ve committed. The fact that you wrote as you did ignored that salient point proves you didn’t read the article. This isn’t surprising as atheists refuse to read articles (including the ones they are ineptly trying to dismantle.) You lose the point.
* Counterpoint *: All atheists are “glib” about mass murderers when they refuse to admit that the 20th and 21st centuries are replete with atheist genocidal maniacs. You lose the point.
* Counterpoint *: The article you refused to read specifically challenged atheists by saying it doesn’t matter whether atheists kill in the name of atheism, they still killed by far more than any other group in terms of sheer numbers and per capita. Atheists represent a tiny percentage of the world’s population and yet you maniacs managed to kill 150 million just in communist atheist countries. Those killed by your brothers and sisters aren’t mollified to learn that you didn’t kill them in the “name of atheism” but rather simply because atheism makes you people violent. You lose the point.
* Counterpoint:” Everyone knows Hitler was baptized Catholic as a child. If you opened your eyes (and a book), you’ll find many of your fellow inwardly blind atheists have similarly been baptized as infants. However, they became atheists as adults. I’m ashamed of your limited intelligence at forcing me to explain this to you. By the way, Stalin was an Orthodox seminarian and Mao a committed Buddhist but that didn’t stop them from killing nearly 100 million people just between the two of them. Marc Hoffman acted like a committed Mormon when he killed his victims but he admitted that he never bought into Mormonism. Napoleon was an atheist. Mussolini was an atheist. Plutarco Calles was an atheist. You lose the point.
* Counterpoint:” Hitler pointed out that he was Catholic. He also pointed out that he was protestant. He also lamented that the fact that moslems never completely conquered Europe during the 8th century saying, “It would be easier to lead moslems into battle rather than wishy-washy Christians.” It’s stupid to suddenly trust a known pathological liar and take him as his word. Hitler also made Christmas illegal in Germany for two years in a row. He also conspired to kidnap the pope. That doesn’t sound like a Catholic however, atheists would love to remove Christmas from of the American calendar. You lose the point.
You will always lose an atheistic argument against a Christian who has read the books you are only pretending to read.
Your “points” are proof you, like the vast majority of other atheists, have never read a book in your life. These “points” are ones found on .gifs which atheists, hiding in the Web’s anonymity, send out to Christians, but never Jews or Moslems, to satisfy some dark, twisted, anti-intellectual urge. If you had read a history book, you would have backed up your “points” with bibliographic references. Instead, you overhead gossip and you took careful note of every ridiculous, anti-intellectual, ahistorical atheistic whine and simply vomited them out here on this site.
*Counterpoint*: You obviously never looked up the word “religion.” This isn’t surprising as atheists refuse to read books (including dictionaries.) A religion is a particular system of faith but faith doesn’t necessarily mean of the supernatural; variety. Religion is a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. Religion is a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices. In this regard, atheism is a religion. And, just in case you still don’t get it (high probability), the US and Canadian Supreme Courts have decreed atheism as such. You lose the point.
I think the fact that one has to Google “atheist charities” to find them speaks a lot. Yes, they’re out there, but they’re not easy to find. Where I live one need not Google “christian charities.” One need only drive down the block. Within a fifteen minute drive from my house, I can find a Catholic hospital (the only hospital in town), a Catholic food pantry, a salvation army, a nondenominational crisis pregnancy center, a Goodwill (which is Methodist affiliated), two nondenominational rescue missions, and a Catholic church that hosts a soup kitchen in its basement once a month. Of course, there is also the county welfare office. Having said that, I have NO intention of knocking atheists, and I don’t think anybody else should either. On the whole they’re good people, and we shouldn’t believe otherwise. After all, we all descended from a common stock, and nature has instilled within us all the capacity both to love and to hate. Eons of descent with modification have endowed us with the instinct to survive at all cost and to pass along our genes to a new generation—a trait, unfortunately, that often tempts us to selfishness. So, yes, we’re all humans and we share a common human nature. But I do think our ideology has a significant influence in how we behave, both individually and collectively. I just don’t think that a secular worldview (a worldview that says this is all there is) can, on the whole, compel people to the same degree of charity that religious motivations can. And I think the fact that the vast majority of charities throughout history have been religiously affiliated is evidence of that. I am NOT saying that this in any way is evidence for the existence of God. And I am NOT saying that atheists are not good people. Nor am I saying that all Christians are good people. I am merely saying that all things being equal, a religious worldview in which people believe in a just but merciful God is more likely to produce a world where charity flourishes than a worldview in which people believe it’s lights out in a few decades at most with no ultimate consequences.
That is pure nonsense. The French Revolution was not atheistic. I t was against the corrupt catholic churches and the gentry. BUt the people were all believers. The churches and the gentry conspired against the middle classes.
Communism is NOT an atheistic religion. That is absolute bullshit. Communism is an ideology and does not depend on the supernatural (like religions).
And only a minority of atheisms in the western world are communists.
The author of this article has just one goal: To diffamte atheists as communists.
And it is a lie, that atheists never helped anyone. Atheists are mostly humanists. And humanists have developed the human rights, which are responsible for our free world, our free thinking. Religions have fought every one of the human rights, we have today.
This is a hate-speech of a religios lunatic, containig lies and difamations.
You are fundamentally misrepresenting the point that was made by atheists.
We are NOT talking about simply adding up all the bad thing that atheists or theists did and blaming the ism for the actions of individuals even when they have nothing in common.
We are talking about beliefs and their consequences. Try the following thought experiment.
Can you think of an atrocity that was carried out explicitly as a consequence of a religious dogma that an individual would not have carried out without it. Before I can say allahu akbar I guarantee your mind is teeming with examples.
Now can you think of an atrocity that was carried out explicitly because someone lacked a belief in god……
That is the argument which was presented usually as a retort to thiests unwarranted claim to moral highground. Please actually bother to address the real arguments next time instead of misrepresentation into a strawman to tear apart, its kinda dishonest.
*Point*: Religion is, by definition, belief in a higher power. Communism has no such belief (neither do atheists), so it doesn’t matter what the Catholic Church thinks, it matters what words mean.
*Point*: If you are going to condemn atheists for “not doing good things”, then you need have a balanced ledger for religion as well, for while there are good things, there are surely *many* bad things as well (Crusades, burning witches and heretics, Thirty Years’ War, jihad, holy war, etc.)
*Point*: I know no atheists who are “glib” about mass murderers who are atheist. What they say is that none of them killed people “in the name of atheism” as people of religion so often did (and do). There are amoral and immoral people in both the atheist and religious camp.
*Point:” You seem to include Hitler’s death count in your total, yet Hitler (and Goering) was raised Catholic and made favorable comments about the religion during his early life, young life, as a politician, and in later life as well.
*Final point*: Nobody “hates” you. We don’t like that people of religion insist that we abide by their beliefsas it regards, say, the functioning of our own bodies. We are happy to have you do with yours what you like, but stop telling us that your super-deity insists we do the same, even if we don’t believe in him.
Ray Mantua writes “Where are these remarkable atheist charities? Don’t put yourself out locating them, no one can find them.”
No, YOU can’t find them. I can find them by googling “atheist charities”, which shows you didn’t do even the least bit of checking—you simply wanted to lie about charitable atheists.
Ian Cooper…one more thing…It’s ridiculous of you to quote the Old Testament to “prove” Christians are bad. Do you quote the New Testament to prove Jews are bad? Let’s quote the koran to prove atheists are wrong as long as we’re at it. By the way, your opinions of Jews must be horrific if you can quote the Old Testament out of context. Why don’t you regale us with your antisemitic rants herein? If Jews dutifully ignore those passages, then from whence are you getting these factoids of yours that Christians are dutifully obeying them?
If Christians were motivated to hatred and murder, then surely you can point out damaging quotes from the New Testament. But, don’t hold your breathe, you won’t find any.
As to “choices,” atheists have the “choice” to follow Ayn Rand, Karl Marx, Frederick Friedrich Nietzsche, Adolf Hitler, Napoleon, Plutarcho Calles, Mao, Stalin and thousands of other atheist genocidal maniacs. If atheism was a force of good in this world, there wouldn’t be as many atheist genocidal maniacs as there have been for the past 250 years.
Stop pretending you’ve read history books. You’re only able to fool other atheists who similarly pretend to read books. Your ignorance is no match for actual knowledge.
Ian Cooper: The Catholic Church is the world’s largest and most successful philanthropic organization. No one suggested that Catholics, or Christians in general, are perfect but atheists often describe themselves in glowing terms that aren’t reflective of reality.
If you know of any atheist food pantries, soup kitchens, hospitals, school for poor kids, retirement centers for the indigent poor, etc, please don’t keep this knowledge to yourself. Feel free to share it with the entire audience. Where are these remarkable atheist charities? Don’t put yourself out locating them, no one can find them.
Thus, the score, if you’ve been keeping track is that the Catholic Church created modern science (including all of the major paradigms of currently understood scientific research,) universities, social work centers and hospitals and have helped tens of billions of people in the past 2000 years. Atheists have done none of these things AND have killed 250 million people in the past 250 years. Have there been some bad Christians who think their secularist values can supplant Christian ones? Of course! No one has ever argued differently. Those theists that atheists have killed never wondered if the gun held in an atheist’s hand was aimed at them because the atheist is an atheist however, no one one should be confused to believe that those atheists weren’t really atheists.
If atheists are as wonderful as you’re pretending, you monsters wouldn’t have killed as many humans as you have. You should be more reflective and read more rather than pretending you have some intelligent outlook on history and the human condition.
Ian, you deserve a gold medal for scriptural gymnastics, for what you have done is wrench a few verses out of context to make a preconceived point. As most New Testament exegetes note, Jesus’ point in the passages you quote is that he himself is the fulfillment of the law. He didn’t abolish the law because he himself fulfilled it. Here is another quote of Jesus from Deuteronomy that no one can dismiss: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.’ 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” (Lk 6:27-28). Jesus is being *very* clear: The law told you to do that, but I tell you to do this. This was the way the early church unanimously interpreted the very clear words of Christ. Read the early church fathers (e.g., Clement, Origen, Polycarp, Ignatius) and try to find any of them interpreting Jesus’ words the way you do. You won’t be successful. They were extremely peaceful people. Another good read I would recommend is Dr. Stephen Cook’s commentary on Deuteronomy. Cook, a Yale-trained scholar of the highest calibre, takes readers on a journey through the entire book of Deuteronomy, explaining many of the customs of the time and putting those verses you quoted into context.
“If there is no God, how can there be atheists?” – G.K. Chesterton
That statement ‘reveals’ that there is undoubtedly an ‘agenda’ for self proclaimed atheists. There is certain ‘power’ in such a proclamation, due to the ‘blindness’ that it brings upon unsuspecting people. Atheism garners a ‘similar’ response that wearing a cross does for Christians…or a Star of David for Jews…or a Crescent moon for Muslims, etc.
Atheism certainly has a purpose…and this article does well to shed ‘some’ light on its purpose!
Fr. Clark, Christians do not only have to follow the New Testament. Jesus said, in Matthew 5:17-18
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
and in Luke 16:17
“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”
Now let’s look at how the Bible requires Christians to condemn and kill others. Don’t forget, Jesus said that these laws are still relevant…
“If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
“If there is found among you, within any of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, a man or woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, and it is told you and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain that such an abomination has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.
2 Chronicles 15:13
“But that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.”
These “rational,” “enlightened” French Revolutionaries also beheaded Antoine Lavoisier, The discoverer of Oxygen, & Father of Chemistry.
Everytime someone brings up Galileo, I think of Lavoisier. House arrest might have sounded good to him…
Dear Ian Cooper,
Please let me know where I can find the Doctrine on Atheism. And please tell me proof of your statements on Christianity. Which Bible are you referring to? The Protestant version or the Catholic version?
Ever hear of the Ten Commandments? If I recall there is this particular one that says “Thou Shalt Not Kill”?
There is a line from the Bible that states “Judge with right judgment”. There is nothing there for condemning others. Jesus gave us the “Our Father” prayer. “Forgive us as we forgive others”. I see forgiveness and mercy.
And Christians do hate one thing. Sin. Not people. If I remember correctly, Jesus also said, “Love your enemies”. Since you claim we hate, I would assume this is referring to those with same-sex attraction. These people are psychologically duped. Using reality and just plain biological science and some common sense would tell one that man and woman were made for each other. One’s thoughts or feeling’s in this case does not represent who they are. They are children of God. Not some fake “LGBTetc” created by, let me see, atheists. The USSR was very good at undermining morality and even though the USSR has fallen, it’s false tendrils are alive and well in the U.S. as well has Hitler’s philosophy.
If those are true then your statement on why those crimes reflect badly makes no philosophical sense.
If they are true then it would reflect rightly upon other Christians.
The reason it does reflect badly is because Catholicism calls us to be better than who we are. When we fail, it seems we are hypocrites but we have a God who is merciful and we ask for forgiveness.
Does the Doctrine on Atheism mention forgiveness?
And you miss the point of this article. Atheists have caused more death and destruction than other religious beliefs.
Atheists in fact do have a god. It’s just that “no-god” has become their god. Note the paradox of this statement. Just by thinking about that statement proves there God does exist.
Anyway, not all “Christians” believe in the same Bible. The Catholic Church put the Bible together. The Reformation removed books because they couldn’t come to terms to what was Truth especially Luther and Calvin.
Are you just using “sola scriptura” in your interpretation of the Bible? Who do you go to for authoritative interpretation of the Bible?
Some questions for you to ponder upon.
Don’t forget that many people who believe that the world is round also have killed others. The nazis during WW2 believed that the world was round. Therefore, the belief that the world also cause war. Nazism is a round-earth ideology. It’s a ideology created by round-earth beleivers, celebrated by people round-earth beleivers, and defended by round-Earth beleivers
This logical fallacy is called “Guilt by Association.”
Hi Ian…I’m unsure if your confused state led you to atheism or perhaps your atheism contributes to your confusion. There are many atheistic philsopies that urge their followers to kill and enslave theists including communism, Ayn Rand’s objectivism (who advocated genocide against American Indians because they hadn’t produced a captilistic society) early 20th century Mexican Republicanism, nietzschism, French Enlightenism, French Republicanism and, if atheist polemicist Sam Harris is correct about Trump being a crypto-atheist, then everything our President-elect has proposed.
When atheists ignore the 250 million dead in the past 250 years at the hands of genocidal atheist maniacs by pretending “well…they killed NOT because of the atheism,” that’s a sign of atheist anti-intellectualism and moral apathy. 3000 people dead during the Spanish Inquisition is nothing compared to the horrors that are associated/the result of not believing in God. If you were correct, then you’d see similar numbers resulting from the supposed hate of Christians. Thus far, athiets win the hatred game and scoring pretty big.
I agree with what Ian Cooper commented earlier. It appears that you are saying (in points 1 & 2), that all atheists are members of some group of the ‘-ism’ list, and therefore they are responsible for any atrocity committed by any of those groups.
If we flip that argument, I could say that Christians are responsible for any Muslim suicide bombing, since you are both theists. See? The comparison doesn’t work. However, Ian Cooper’s premise does stand up – there are no tenets in any definition of atheism that urges a person to do harm to another, but the Bible and Koran (and other sacred books) *do* have passages that encourage harm.
BTW, point #6 is flatly inaccurate. Just google ‘Atheist charities’ and you will find a large list of Atheists doing good in the world.
Mr Cooper, where in the writings of the New Testament are Christians encouraged to hate, condemn, and kill others? Please be specific.
The entire argument is based on a false premise, that atheism is a system with directives that call for violence. It’s not, therefore suggesting that an atheist person or group who commits violence is evidence that such violence was committed in the name of atheism is as ridiculous as suggesting it was committed in the name of silly mustaches if they all had silly mustaches.
To further the analogy, if they imposed a rule that everyone must have a silly mustache, and the Holy Church of Beards opposed them, then any retaliating action against the Church would not be the fault of silly mustaches.
“Even if we were to ignore the obvious crimes against humanity that atheistic communists have committed, atheism would be condemned simply by examining the devastation of the French Revolution.”
“If the negative actions of any and all theists reflect badly upon all theists, all forms of religion and all religionists then it follows that the negative actions of any and all atheists reflect badly upon all atheists, all forms of irreligion and all irreligionists. This logical fallacy is called “Guilt by Association.”“
It would help if the author wouldn’t blatantly contradict himself in the space of two paragraphs.
I agree with the first commenter.
2 – Communism is a political philosophy – you cannot call any strongly held philosophical beliefs a “religion”. That would only be true in a metaphorical sense, like saying someone is “religious” about making their bed each morning.
3 – I don’t know enough about the French Revolution, so I will let this point stand.
4 – Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches. Therefore mustaches cause dictatorship. See how silly this argument is? You clearly don’t know what atheism is. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god, it says nothing else about the person. It is not a philosophy, it has no creed, there are no funny hats to wear.
5 – There you go, it is at least possible to try to connect those other isms to poor behavior, because they are not “a-” meaning “outside”. But I’d need to know specifics of how someone killed in the name of one of those isms.
6 – “Why is it that no one has ever been helped anyone in the name of atheism?” Because that would be silly. It would be the same as asking why no one has ever been helped in the name of “not collecting stamps”. Understand?
7 – Catholics do try to help in the world. They cause some strife as well, but on the balance, they do more good than harm. I don’t have any problem saying that. It also has no bearing on whether or not god exists.
8 – “They never organize themselves to help the unfortunate. It’s because they can’t and simply don’t want to.” You seem to see atheism as some sort of club, it is not. Now on the other hand, being a Humanist is what you are, not what you are not. And those folks do congregate, help each other, have charitable initiatives, etc.
“It’s amazing anyone psychologically and spiritually survives the wholesale rejection of hope, logic and reality as they cherry pick data to uphold their opinions.”
I certainly don’t hope for an afterlife, that is rather silly. All the good I do must be done in this life, before I die. As far as reality goes, everything appears to be the result of natural processes. It all seems to fit together that way.
Your picture of atheism sounds like what I might have heard 40 years ago, before all the authors that helped explain it better. Have you read any of those books?
Go ask an atheist what they believe in regarding life, then come back and report here. Don’t mischaracterize us.
I find some of the “-isms” on your list a bit of a puzzle. I’m not a libertarian, but I’m not aware that atheism is necessarily a part of that philosophy. The late Joseph Sobran was a libertarian and a devote Catholic. Industrialization isn’t a philosophy at all. Are you suggesting there’s something atheistic about building or working in a factory, in the manner of a William Blake? Individualism is a vague term and can mean anything from narcissism (which is atheistic, unless the self is a god) to merely the mental habit of not letting the government or others push one around without justification. You spread an awfully big net for a one-page article!
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the Catholic Church holds that communism is a religion. Honestly, I think it’s probably very much the opposite is what the Church views communism as. Got any authority on that?
Lack of belief in gods is no more a “philosophy” than lack of belief in leprechauns; people behave on the beliefs they have, not the beliefs they don’t have. Atheism, unlike religion, is completely free of content. As such, there is no symmetry.
By the same faulty reasoning used in this article, we may blame Pol Pot’s mass murder on his lack of belief in unicorns and not his belief in totalitarianism. Likewise, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were theists, therefore the 620,000 who died in the American Civil War were killed in the name of theism.
As a Humanist and unbeliever I’m accustomed to Fundamentalist venom but it’s surprising to find Catholics using a similar poison. Thankfully, this article is not a representative viewpoint of the faith—which I hold in high regard relative to others—and Pope Francis offers a more encouraging and enlightened perspective: http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077
You are missing the point. All of your statements above were not done in the NAME of Atheism. Religion (Christian, Muslim, etc) do things in service to their religion, because of their religion. You are an infidel, I cut off your head. You are a non-believer, I burn you at the stake. You don’t follow one of our laws, we torture you until you confess, then we burn you for your sins.
You are equating Communism with Atheism and saying that the evil done in the name of Communism equates to doing evil for Atheism, and that is disingenuous. Communism may be Atheistic, but one need not be a communist to be an atheist and vice versa. Your argument falls.
Next you talk about the French Revolution, the Divine Right of Kings vs Democracy. Again, this is not religious vs atheist; individuals were not killing in the name of God or because God did not exist, but for the status quo vs a new system of government. Wow are you reaching.
Your right to be a Christian or an Atheist, I really don’t care, but you are completely characterizing these murders – no one was killed because they believed in God, there was always an underlying cause.
“If the negative actions of any and all theists reflect badly upon all theists, all forms of religion and all religionists then it follows that the negative actions of any and all atheists reflect badly upon all atheists, all forms of irreligion and all irreligionists.”
But the harmful actions of individuals do NOT reflect badly upon all others who subscribe to the philosophy of those individuals, unless that philosophy urges its followers to commit harmful actions. The harmful actions of individual atheists do not reflect badly upon other atheists because atheism does not urge atheists to do harm. Christianity DOES tell Christians to do harm: it urges Christians to hate, to condemn others, and even to kill. This is the difference, and this is why Christian crimes reflect badly on other Christians.
As mentioned by Fr. Mitch Pacwa (Threshold of Hope) .. “Murder by Government” statistics are online for anyone to see. This link is to just the 20th Century numbers.