Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Killing in the name of anything

I posted this on the comment line, but I think I should make it a post as well.

As I understand it, some atheists have been using the admittedly bloody history of Christianity as grounds for atheism, claiming that atheism is pure in that regard. I find this patently absurd. You get the blood when the power of the state is attached to any ideology, whether it be a Christian ideology, a Jewish ideology, a Hindu ideology or an Islamic ideology, or an atheist ideology. Can people be fanatical enough about atheism to kill for it? I realize that they don't believe in hell, but some of them are exclusivists in the sense that they think everyone who is on the atheist side is right and everyone who is committed to "religion" is doing damage. When someone can't recogize the fact that Gandhi received profound inspiration from his Hindu beliefs while challenging the worst in Hinduism, if you call Martin Luther King insane because he was caught up in the "God delusion" and can't see how important his faith was in undergirding the social transformation he spearheaded, then you are an ideologue, and I'm going to start getting worried if you ever have a gun in your hand.

State-sponsored Christianity, state-sponsored Islam, state-sponsored atheism. Is the problem with the beliefs, or with the misguided attempt to support these ideologies with coercive power. The bad news for atheists is that the bloody history of Christianity does nothing to support a case against Christianity. The good news for atheists is that these things do support something that I think most atheists believe in: the separation of Church and State. That is the correct use of the"holy horrors" argument, and atheists who want to use it in that way can be my guest.

60 comments:

vjack said...

The only thing I'd add is that atheism has no dogma, creed, or set agenda. There is nothing that teaches atheists that they are superior to everyone else, that theists are doomed to hell, etc.

Mr. Grouchypants said...

By the same token, atheism has nothing to dissuade atheists from thinking they are superior to theists. Atheism has nothing to parallel the Christian idea of loving your enemies. And atheism certainly doesn't prevent atheists from systematically killing theists if the former Soviet Union is any guide.

AmandaLaine said...

Victor, from your view, would you say there's something wrong with being an ideologue?

Victor Reppert said...

Being an ideologue in thse sense I have in mind is a serious problem. When everything is looked at from the point of view of an ideology, so that, for example, Martin Luther King is considered insane because he waw a believer, and the role of his faith is not recognized as the positive force that it was, then there is a serious problem. There may be no hell for atheists, but there is the intellectual superiority claims and irrationality charges that come from atheists on a regular basis. Theism has not creed, dogma, or set agenda. Theists may have all of the above, as may atheists. Many Christians do not automatically infer from the fact that someone is an atheist that they will go to hell. Some Christian philosophers are soteriological exclusivists, but they are, I think, in the minority.

Marcus said...

Most of Christian history is peaceful. The crusades were merely a result of the fact that Islam was violently invading Christian nations. Before the crusades started Islam was already fighting Spain and had conquered much of the Eastern Roman empire. Lets not forget that the churches to which Paul wrote his letters are now in modern day Turkey... an Islamic nation. In short the crusades were self defence.

Talking about church and state I can see what you mean, the "Church of England" often draws people who are interested in power, not Christ.

Ilíon said...

"There is nothing that teaches atheists that they are superior to everyone else, ..."

Yet, *somehow*, nearly every single one of them vainly imagines that he is, when, in fact, and by the atheist's own dogma and creed (which he denies having), he is a defective human animal, not a superior human being.

BenYachov said...

The Soviets did kill & persecute in the name of Atheism. They all belonged to an organization called THE GODLESS LEAGUE threw which they oppressed religious people.

Atheist=No God=Godless.

Ilíon said...

BenYachov: "The Soviets did kill & persecute in the name of Atheism. ..."

Aside from the fact that internet atheists, as general rule, are generally intellectually dishonest with regard to God and/or "religion", getting any of them to ackowledge that some of their fellow God-haters have indeed murdered millions of human beings in the cause of their version of evangelism is simply an honesty too far.

You know, much like you and the Solas.

BenYachov said...

What is a "Solas"?

im-skeptical said...

"state-sponsored atheism"

Bullshit. The ideology was communism. Atheism is NOT an ideology, as vjack has pointed out. I'm an atheist. I'm not a communist. I don't share their ideology, because it's a communist ideology, not an atheist ideology. Ilion keeps harping about intellectual dishonesty. If he had a shred of intellectual honesty, he would recognize this.

BenYachov said...

Atheism is part of Communist ideology. Just as Classic Theism is part of Catholic ideology.

The Godless league in the name of promoting a society without God belief oppressed and killed people.

The idea you can't kill in the name of Atheism is Prima facie absurd.

Of course you can!

Papalinton said...

Victor
You might be interested in READING THIS

Clifford Orwin certainly dishes it out against Secularism but he also seems somewhat concerned with the current trajectory contemporary Christianity is taking.

Well worth a read.

im-skeptical said...

Ben,

"The Godless league in the name of promoting a society without God belief oppressed and killed people.

The idea you can't kill in the name of Atheism is Prima facie absurd."

They were atheists but their ideology was communist. THAT's what people died for. Atheism is NOT an ideology.

Chris said...

It's true that atheism is not an ideology. Nevertheless, to deny the fundamental connection between the totalitarian ism's of the 20th century and atheo-materialism, one has to chuck objectivity out the window.

im-skeptical said...

" to deny the fundamental connection between the totalitarian ism's of the 20th century and atheo-materialism, one has to chuck objectivity out the window."

And what exactly is this 'fundamental' connection? Those people were motivated by communism, not atheism. The connection is more incidental than fundamental. (Unless, of course, you are intent on 'proving' that atheism causes people to do bad things.) There are plenty of atheists who have absolutely no ideological connection with the communists. How fundamental is that?

Chris said...

im-s


True, atheism doesn't always mean communism.

But communism always means atheism.
To talk about communism without atheism is like talking about married bachelors.

im-skeptical said...

"But communism always means atheism."

Except for the ones who aren't atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/Religion-and-Communism-in-Modern-China.php

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/mis-Political_Parties/Constitution_of_Political_Parties/ConstitutionOfCPI.pdf

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2012/05/chavez-communism-and-christianity/

Shadow of a Doubt said...

I would like to note that certain ignorant people seem to be conflating Stalinism/Marxism/Maoism and similar systems with Atheism. They are not the same nor are they required to be together, they are systems which incorporate communism and atheism, but they are not the same thing. Just as one can be a christian without joining the crusades, one an be a communist without being an atheist or vice versa. (In fact as a atheist who has read the bible, unlike most christians, Jesus himself had many communist and socialist leanings, and almost no capitalist ones).

If you are going to go about throwing various terms about, on the internet, you have no excuse for not, at the bare minimum, hitting wikipedia first.

grodrigues said...

What a random nobody conceives Atheism to be is quite irrelevant; what is relevant is that from Marx down to his 20th century tyrannical murdering descendants, Atheism was always an *integral* and *inseparable* part, a motivating factor in the Communist project. This is amply documented.

If someone wants to excommunicate these Atheists from the True Brotherhood, they are certainly welcomed to; they could however, enlighten the rest of us what exactly are the heresies committed, the atheistic principles that they violated, etc. Maybe we will find after all, and to our eternal bafflement, that Atheism entails more than denying that God or gods exists.

Chris said...

grodrigues,

Thank you. Perfectly said.

I almost choked on my chicken parm when I read the remark about ignorant people conflating marxism and atheism. Sure, they are not the same, but they're kind of like milk and cookies.

They are :integral and inseparable. Official state sponsored atheism is to be found in communist regimes.

Papalinton said...

"Atheism was always an *integral* and *inseparable* part, a motivating factor in the Communist project."

Drivel, of course. How ironic it is that when communism fell over in the Soviet Union, all the Communists suddenly became Christian again, swapping one totalitarian ideology for another. The iconic transition is no better reflected than in President Putin himself. Putin as Head of the Federal Security Service, an arm of the former KGB, as well as head of Yeltsin's Security Council, the Head apparatchik no less of the famed [or is it the infamed?] communist instrument of state control, that suddenly began sporting a giant Christian crucifix around his neck.

Strange bedfellows. these Christians and Communists romping around under the bedsheets. And now that the Russian Orthodox Church has firmly ensconced itself in the corridors of power, once again we are witnessing state initiated religious-inspired pogroms against homosexuals and dissidents that have apparently bad-mouthed the Church which now carries with it a heavy imprisonment term. [Really, when you think about it, not much has changed from the old Communist regime.]

Welcome to the new christian Russia. We look forward to reading in the international press of many more Christian Vigilantes raping and murdering homosexuals, and of criminalizing decent people simply because they seek to defend the rights of gay people to lead a life free from state sponsored harassment, persecution, aided and abetted by vile religious bigotry.

Papalinton said...

Victor
Here is an example of State-sponsored Christianity

im-skeptical said...

"What a random nobody conceives Atheism to be is quite irrelevant;"

Translation: We're not about to listen to any atheists trying to explain what it means to be an atheist. We will tell them what it means. And we are so desperate to alleviate the guilt the many atrocities committed by our religious institutions, we will seize upon any opportunity to pin similar atrocities on atheism. So tu toque, atheists.

Crude said...

Translation: We're not about to listen to any atheists trying to explain what it means to be an atheist.

Actually, they are listening to atheists explaining what it means to be an atheist. Centuries of them.

What they are rejecting is some bizarre, modern, idiosyncratic definition that seems to have far more to do with whitewashing (much like Stalin, come to think of it) the intellectual history of atheism and anti-theism than anything else.

The fact is, even without the communism, the League of Militant Atheists sounds more or less exactly like what the crazier Gnus envision atheism being in the 21st century.

You said in another thread that they were religious, Skep, even without their communism. Note: you may be in league with more religious people than you think, in that case.

im-skeptical said...

"Actually, they are listening to atheists explaining what it means to be an atheist. Centuries of them."

And yet they don't know what they are saying.

"You said in another thread that they were religious, Skep, even without their communism."

I said communism is their religion.

You can't mount an effective argument against your ideological opponent if you have no idea what he says or what he believes. Clearly, you don't.

Crude said...

Skep,

I said communism is their religion.

No. Did you not even read the question you were being asked, and actually replied to?

Direct question: Strip the communism from the League of Militant Atheists. You're left with a group of atheists who believe theism is false, religion is harmful, that religion must be wiped out and eradicated. They promote (so they say) 'science' and 'reason'. They believe children should be raised as anti-theists, irreligious.

Still religious?


Your reply, after my asking multiple times:

Absolutely - it fits my definition to a tee.

Now, it's entirely possible you made a mistake - hey, it happens. But between that and the wannabe snarky line you just deployed? Well, now you're removing your foot from your mouth, and checking for missing teeth.

That said - would you care to continue this conversation, now with civility and a lack of snark? Because I've demonstrated I'm happy to do exactly that. But if you prefer to be a catty bitch giving me wide, wide openings for mockery - believe me, I'm more than willing to return to the previous standard.

Ball's in your court.

im-skeptical said...

Yes, crude, it was a mistake. I was referring to the League of Militant as they were, not the ridiculous postulation you had made the day before, where they had no communist ideology. It should have been clear from everything I said that I was making the case that communism is a religion, not atheism, and I stand by that.

And don't tell me about snark. That describes the very first thing you ever said to me, and the majority of every thing since then.

Crude said...

It should have been clear from everything I said that I was

No, see? This is one reason why my patience with you is limited. You fucked up. I asked a simple, direct question that was on topic, you finally gave me an answer, and - oops! - you either have changed your mind since then, or you couldn't even read at the time. So much for not reading what one's ideological opponents have to say.

And like I said - big deal, you made a mistake. But now I have to deal with you playing the 'it should have been obvious that my answer to your question was NOT my answer to your question' card? Kindly knock it off. No one buys it, no one will.

And don't tell me about snark.

No, I will. Because - as I have demonstrated in multiple threads now - I actually am entirely willing to be completely civil with you. Thus far you're incapable of responding without catty bitchy behavior, and like I said, giving me wide, wide openings to deploy mockery. Which I've avoided - to make a point.

So again, ball's in your court. Will you behave? Or do you want to continue demonstrating that the only way I've ever treated you is the way you so richly deserve?

Regardless - yes, atheism as 'belief God does not exist' is historical. And the historical behavior of atheists is pretty wretched, despite it being ridiculously recent. Now, if you want to say 'But that wasn't atheists! That was...' - we can play that game, and concede 'lack of belief' atheism as irrelevant for the sake of argument. Now we're onto 'anti-theism', which was embodied by League of Militant Godless and the New Atheists both.

Does this observation piss you off? Maybe. Being pissed off doesn't make it false. Now let's see if you can respond to it without namecalling or insults - because what I have delivered to you is measured and reasonable considering the pointless reactions you've thus far displayed.

im-skeptical said...

Buzz off. I have no use for your 'civility'.

Crude said...

Buzz off. I have no use for your 'civility'.

Because your problem with me was never my being rude to you - something which came in response to your own rudeness, not in advance of it. Your problem has always been that I disagree with you, and you often don't know how to respond - and that bugs you. I treat your idols poorly, and that stirs religious fury. "You're so rude to me!" was always a red herring.

But hey - I've gone out of my way to be polite and civil with you, and it's illustrated my point beautifully. Thanks for that. ;)

im-skeptical said...

Careful, crude. The sun might shine on you.

Crude said...

Careful, crude. The sun might shine on you.

You're the one who's afraid of illumination, Skep. ;)

Either way, I submit a thought for the more well-adjusted in the thread.

Take a good look at the League of Militant Atheists. Behold - anti-theism's recent history, just one example of it.

Papalinton said...

Crude
Your civility is that of the snake in the Garden of Eden.

Both are illusory.
Now buzz off.

im-skeptical said...

I'm sure crude feels better now that he thinks he has succeeded in making atheists guilty (by association ??) of Stalin's crimes. If his logic holds true, then I submit to you this thought:

Take a good look at crude. Behold Christianity's ambassador, the finest example of Christian ideology at work. Defender of crusades, inquisitions, and witch hunts. One who would happily cast gays and god-deniers into the pit of fire for all eternity, just because they don't see things his way. Exemplar of the ethic that is Christian: truth and honesty be damned - my ideology trumps all others, because I'm a Christian.

Crude said...

Linton,

As usual, you speak in my direction, and thus I have to remind everyone that I ignore you since you're a known liar and plagiarist. Really man, even the atheists kind of cringe and try to ignore you when you speak up. ;)

Crude said...

Skep,

I'm sure crude feels better now that he thinks he has succeeded in making atheists guilty (by association ??) of Stalin's crimes.

I did no such thing. I compared the League of Militant Atheists to, specifically, a subset of atheists - the Cult of Gnu. 'Stalin' wasn't even mentioned.

You just have to have a look at the entry yourself to notice the comparisons. Let me quote a portion:

The League was a "nominally independent organization established by the Communist Party to promote atheism." It published newspapers, journals, and other materials that lampooned religion; it sponsored lectures and films; it organized demonstrations and parades; it set up antireligious museums; and it led a concerted effort telling Soviet citizens that religious beliefs and practices were "wrong" and "harmful", and that "good" citizens ought to embrace a scientific, atheistic worldview.

But let's see you fumble yet again:

Take a good look at crude. Behold Christianity's ambassador, the finest example of Christian ideology at work. Defender of crusades, inquisitions, and witch hunts.

Uh. 'Christianity's ambassador'? I haven't mentioned Christ once in this entire exchange. Nor have I defended the crusades, inquisitions and/or witch hunts - three things you probably know jack-all about, granted.

Nor do I have any problem pointing out when Christians, Popes, Catholics and more have done rotten things. That's kind of the difference here, Skep - I'm willing to acknowledge when Christians screw up. I also point out when the claims that they screwed up are wrong or misguided - but I have zero problem with that.

You, on the other hand? You are perpetually locked in No True Scotsman mode with atheists. If your standards were consistent, you'd either condemn the history of both, or forgive the history of both. But alas, you're a cultist - and that means being inconsistent.

One who would happily cast gays and god-deniers into the pit of fire for all eternity, just because they don't see things his way

Not just false, but lies and slander - and easily exposed as being such. Par for the course from you - you're tremendously slow.

A) What 'I' want has nothing to do with it. I judge no one as being worth of damnation - or salvation. I hope all will be saved, frankly. I don't regard my own salvation as certain, for that matter.

B) Nor do I think 'gays' nor 'god-deniers' are automatically hellbound. That's ludicrous in both cases - in the former case, 'gay' isn't problematic at all. It's behavior, not being, that is the problem. In the latter, there's the invincibly ignorant, etc. Please, by all means - I defy you to show just one instance of my saying gays or atheists are hellbound, ever on this site - or my own blog.

You can't. Because you're a liar, taking lessons from Linton. Which is really pathetic, Skep. Even for you.

Exemplar of the ethic that is Christian: truth and honesty be damned - my ideology trumps all others, because I'm a Christian.

Not at all. You can't even coherently state what my 'ideology' is. You tried just now, lied profusely, and did your usual 'moron' behavior besides. Worse, you're a hypocrite - you snarl about the horrible track record of 'religion', but when anti-atheism's nasty history (with a vastly higher body count in a vastly shorter period of time) is pointed out, you bitch and moan and change the topic.

Really, Skep - this is the best you can do?

But don't worry. I'm sure when you close your eyes, Master Dawkins pets your cheek soothingly and purrs, 'You're a good boy, Skep. Good boy. So -smart-, such a defender of science.' And that makes it all worthwhile. ;)

grodrigues said...

@Crude:

"with a vastly higher body count in a vastly shorter period of time"

It is not just the magnitude of the murderous scale; it goes down to the very shattering of any standard of human life and decency. Once again, this is amply documented: see for example, Orlando Figes' book "The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia".

im-skeptical said...

"You can't even coherently state what my 'ideology' is."

This coming from the jackass who calls me a 'gnu' and tries to convince everyone that Stalinist ideology is somehow linked to that of non-communist atheists. crude, your ideology is perfectly clear, and decidedly ugly. You've stated it on your own blog. Now buzz off.

Chris said...

im-s

Some clarification. Are you suggesting that atheo-materialism ha no more connection to communism than anything else- let's say Christianity?

im-skeptical said...

Chris,

I am suggesting that atheism has absolutely no ideological connection to communism, because it is not an ideology at all. Christianity and communism are both ideologies, and there are certain things that they share in common: both are world-views that dominate or prevail over lesser world-views in the eyes of their own adherents, and both provide a framework for how adherents should conduct their lives, complete with the threat of punishment for those who don't comply. In that regard, Christianity and communism have much more in common than atheism and communism. That is not to say that Christianity and communism are the same. But neither should you say that communism and atheism are the same. They aren't.

Papalinton said...

"The fundamental opposition is between dogma and the scientific outlook. On the one side, Christianity and Communism, the two great rival dogmatic systems; on the other Scientific Humanism." M Knight.

Captured the quintessence of the culture wars in so few words. As keen as Occam's Razor at its most efficient.

Chris said...

im-s

Absolutely no connection?

Marx?
Dialectical materialism?
Historical materialism?
Communist state sponsored atheism?

Papalinton said...

"Once again, this is amply documented: see for example, Orlando Figes' book "The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia"."


From WIKI: "The Whisperers deals mainly with the impact of repression on internal life. It examines the influence of the Soviet regime and its campaigns of Terror on family relationships, emotions and beliefs, moral choices, issues of personal and social identity, and collective memory. Describing the subject-matter of his book, Figes claims that 'the real power and lasting legacy of the Stalinist system were neither in structures of the state, nor in the cult of the leader, but, as the Russian historian Mikhail Gefter once remarked, "in the Stalinism that entered into all of us".'[20] ............... A planned 2012 Russian translation of The Whisperers was abandoned after fact-checking by the Memorial Society, who alleged that it contained inaccuracies in Figes' presentation of their original Russian-language interviews.[15][22] Publisher Corpus considered the errors numerous and problematic enough to cancel publication altogether, providing examples of a Gulag inmate being wrongfully described as one of the "trusties" (prisoners who collaborated with the gulag administration), and the inclusion of a quote which did not appear in Memorial's original interview with the subject it was attributed to.[15] Historians Peter Reddaway and Stephen F. Cohen felt that as a result Figes' work "cannot be read without considerable caution"."

Tragic to be sure for those subjected to the horrors of Stalinism. Ironically, when one picks up the hypertext links on Stalinism in the Wiki quote above, not one mention, not one, is made of atheism, atheist, atheistic. Surely one would have thought that had atheism been a core principle of Communism or Stalinism as believers on this site wish so hard for, one would reasonably expect it to be front and centre in a discussion on Stalinism. But no. Nary a sight.

The intellectual midgets on this site seem to not understand that the League of Militant Atheists was formed as an enabler for Communism, to expunge Christian drivel that was in was in spiritual competition and existential combat with Communist drivel.

But then, Christians live in an immaterial world, an imaginary world predicated on the the greatest of the failed epistemologies, Faith.

Papalinton said...

Crude - Master of the Inconsequential.

im-skeptical said...

Chris,

Yes absolutely no ideological connection.

This seems to be a difficult concept for certain people to grasp. Linton's comment should help shed light on it. In fact, it hits the nail square on the head.

Why was atheism important to the communists? Not because it provides an ideological framework for communism, but because it pushes aside any theistic ideology that could compete for dominance with communism. (If you're an atheist, you can't be a Christian.) It leaves an ideological void that can be filled with a different kind of religion: that of communism. Atheism is nothing more than a means to an end for them. It is precisely because atheism entails no ideology in its own right that is is suitable to exploit by those who wish to expunge competing theistic ideologies and replace them with their own.

Papalinton said...

One can believe in Communism and be an atheist.
One can believe in Democracy and be an atheist.

Atheist is simply the stance there is no evidence for a god or the world it resides in, supernaturalism.

That is why, so clearly and without equivocation, Skep can reasonably infer, one cannot be a Christian and an atheist. Atheism is NOT [emphasized for the benefit of the hard-of-reading on this site] an ideology.

Talk to me about naturalism, then you can talk ideology with me. And I will be able to talk with you about and defend an ideology that is founded in reality, based in a scientific epistemological framework, that commands an exponential level of explanatory power orders of magnitude greater than village christian folklore.

Chris said...

Ok.

Are you also saying that the ideology of naturalism has no connection to communism?

im-skeptical said...

What ideological connection do you see? Does being a naturalist drive one to enslave a population or to commit mass murder? It seems to me you are reaching for something, anything that would give you a reason to say, "Aha! You share this ideological connection." But there's nothing in communist ideology that is inherently naturalist. Communism is primarily an economic worldview.

I would suggest that if you want to be critical of people like me for the things we believe, that's fair game. Have at it. But it's really dishonest to try to hook us up with this ideology that we don't like any more than you do.

Papalinton said...

"If you're an atheist, you can't be a Christian." But you can be a Communist. Indeed when Communism fell over in the Soviet Union incalculable numbers of Christians came crawling out of the socialist woodwork to fill the vacuum tout de suite left by the death of Communism; the seamless segueing of one totalitarian ideology for another.

Now we have a Russia hurtling towards fascism aided and abetted by the Russian Orthodox church.

Crude said...

crude, your ideology is perfectly clear, and decidedly ugly.

Which must make you a complete effin' moron for repeatedly being unable to grok it, eh? ;)

You're a liar, Skep. You know it. I called your bluff - you say I think nonbelievers and gays are hellbound?

Give the quote.

You ain't gone one - because it ain't true. Now go scamper behind Linton and wait for Dawkins' tender pat on your head.

Hint: It's not coming, because you are to him what a sucker in the pews was for Jim Bakker.

Crude said...

Grod,

It is not just the magnitude of the murderous scale; it goes down to the very shattering of any standard of human life and decency. Once again, this is amply documented: see for example, Orlando Figes' book "The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia".

Oh, absolutely. I haven't read that book, but I'll add it to my list.

Oh, oh, but the League of Militant Atheists are NOTHING like the modern Cult of Gnu. Sure, they wanted to see religion stamped out, yammered on about their superior scientific minds (while abusing science left and right), they endorsed intellectually and emotionally bullying believers, they pleasured themselves to the dream of a glorious atheist state... oh, but they believed in a socialist market system!

Totally different from modern Gnus. ;)

im-skeptical said...

"Give the quote."

Here is your statement: "Christian have done themselves a lot of harm by trying to remain civil and respectful with people who not only grant them neither, but who don't really merit either. If you act respectful and even praiseful of a jackass who insults and belittles your faith and others' faith, you're not 'being the bigger man'. You're enabling intellectual bullying. Knock it off, please - even if you prefer to do it with more grace than myself. "

This little rant came after one of our typical disputes where crude claimed that ID is about the origin of life and I claimed that it is about inferring design, but not how life came to exist in the first place. (IDists are creationists. They can't officially state what they believe about how life came to exist, because it would undermine their position that they are engaged in science.)

So after refusing to listen to my argument, changing the topic, misrepresenting my words, calling me names, etc. (crude's usual debate tactics). He wrote this little rant in his blog. It is worth noting that by "with people who not only grant them neither, but who don't really merit either", he means anyone he decides is a member of his 'enemies' list: the infamous cult of gnu. I have asked on several occasions what it takes to be granted the honor of membership in this 'cult', and crude has never given a clear answer. The best I can come up with is that if you ever say anything in defense of Richard Dawkins, you will be branded as a cultist and earn the eternal scorn of crude.

WMF said...

Ok skep, that statement contains a claim that gays are hellbound, where?

im-skeptical said...

"I defy you to show just one instance of my saying gays or atheists are hellbound"

That's not what I said. (And this is further proof that he refuses to listen to or understand my words.) I said crude would happily cast them into the pit. His numerous slurs against gays tell the story. "It's behavior, not being, that is the problem."

Ilíon said...

This is just too funny!

I-pretend-to-give-a-damn-about-reason-and-morality: "*GASP!!!1!11* You're asserting that 'gays' are hellbound. That's EVIL!!11!"

Non-exhaustively --

1) What does one even mean by "gay"?
a) Does one mean someone who suffers the temptation of same-sex attraction, but rejects acting upon the temptation as sinful and inconsistent with his redemption by Christ?
b) Does one mean someone who suffers the temptation of same-sex attraction, and doesn't even try to resist the temptation, and gives it no further thought than where to find his next "partner" ... but who also hasn't made it into a matter of leftist identity politics, which he tries to force everyone else to approve?
c) Does one mean someone who suffers the temptation of same-sex attraction -- or not -- but who has made same-sex attracton into a matter of leftist identity politics ... and who fully intends to use all the full range of state violence to persecute any who dare say that the act is sin?

2) I-pretend asserts atheism ... and atheism logically entails the *denial* that there is any such thing as 'morality'. Thus, if atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then no one has any basis upon which to say that *anything* is immoral/wicked/(morally) evil.

3) I-pretend asserts atheism ... and atheism logically entails the *denial* that human beings "have immortal souls" (as people put it). Thus, if atheism were indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then physical death is annhilation of the human person.

So, I-pretend -- who denies there even are such things as 'right' and 'wrong', and who asserts that everyone is annhilation-bound -- is whining that it's super-duper 'wrong' for others to say that homosexual "sex" is 'wrong' or that those who do not repent of homosexual "sex" are death-bound.

===========
What is with all you childish people?

*Everyone* is/was "hellbound" -- 'Hell' is just another name for capital-D Death, the death that is beyond simply the physical death of the body -- as that is our natural state unless we are bought-back from death by Christ.

What is with all you people that you continuously take the red-herring bait of people like im-skeptical and Papalinton, whom you know from extensive experience are intellectually dishonest?

Crude said...

Let's continue to marvel not only at how Skep is lying, but at how uniquely *bad* at lying he is.

I ask:

You're a liar, Skep. You know it. I called your bluff - you say I think nonbelievers and gays are hellbound?

Give the quote.


He replies:

Here is your statement: "Christian have done themselves a lot of harm by trying to remain civil and respectful with people who not only grant them neither, but who don't really merit either. If you act respectful and even praiseful of a jackass who insults and belittles your faith and others' faith, you're not 'being the bigger man'. You're enabling intellectual bullying. Knock it off, please - even if you prefer to do it with more grace than myself. "

Now let me ask everyone reading here. When Skep says this about me:

One who would happily cast gays and god-deniers into the pit of fire for all eternity, just because they don't see things his way

And I ask for evidence - and his reply is a quote where I say that Christians should not be respectful and praiseful of jackasses who insult and belittle them... really. At that what's to be said of Skep? Do we go with 'he's just so stupid he doesn't know what he's saying'? How about 'he's a liar, but a particularly bad liar'?

Of course, when it's noticed that Skep has lied - that he said 'Crude would cast gays and nonbelievers into hell!!!!' and he produces NO statement of mine saying this - in fact, I explictly state the opposite - we get this:

I said crude would happily cast them into the pit. His numerous slurs against gays tell the story. "It's behavior, not being, that is the problem."

Gosh, what a slur! How dare I suggest that 'being gay' is not even a sin, certainly not a guarantee of being 'hellbound'. It is behavior that is problematic, regardless of one's sexual attraction.

You're a pathetic specimen, Skep. You're not just slow - something, by the way, very obvious to more than just myself, even if I'm one of the few people blunt enough to say it. You are a liar. You tried to lie here, and all you've demonstrated is that my advice - my saying 'Do not treat insulting, mocking, belittling people with respect, because they do not deserve it. Save it for people who are civil and capable of dialogue.' - is valid.

Quick, tell another lie! Surely THAT one won't make you look stupid and dishonest! ;)

im-skeptical said...

Since crude has doubled down with his lies, I feel I should set the record straight. I could repeat the whole sequence of comments, but if anyone is interested in knowing who said what and who is lying, all they have to do is read it for themselves.

But let me just point out one thing, because this is a tactic that I've seen him use many times.

I said crude would happily cast gays and atheists into the pit of fire. His response was to distort my statement into something about whether he believes they are 'hellbound', and then accuse me of lying for having said that. Then he throws out a smoke screen about demanding that I provide a quote to prove what I never said. But then notice his latest distortion of the distortion: "he said 'Crude would cast gays and nonbelievers into hell!!!!'", even placing it in single quotes as though it were my actual words. Now this version is closer to my original words, but what he's doing is subtly changing his own lie to a version that is half-way between what I said and his own lie about it. So he's re-writing history to make his lie sound less blatant, and supposing that nobody's smart enough to notice. (Because nobody could possibly be as smart as you, right crude?) And all the while, insisting that I'm the one who's lying.

This is crude at his finest. A consummate liar.

Crude said...

Since crude has doubled down with his lies, I feel I should set the record straight. I could repeat the whole sequence of comments, but if anyone is interested in knowing who said what and who is lying, all they have to do is read it for themselves.

Skep is a liar, and worse, he's stupid. He doesn't only lie - he tells rotten lies that are transparent.

No, I would never 'cast gays and god-deniers into the pit of fire'. No, I never said they were hellbound. No, I never said anything like that. And when his pathetic lying ass was called out on it to demand proof, he linked a conversation where the entirety of what I said was respectful dialogue between Christians and people who mock, belittle, and insult Christians intentionally is not only not possible, it's harmful to pursue.

No 'they should be cast into the pit of fire!' from me. No 'I think they should go to hell!' I never said it about 'nonbelievers', I never said it about 'gays', and Skep - mental midget that he is - knows it. Which is why his lying ass can't provide any quotes to show it, despite my asking for it.

Skep is a liar and a slanderer. Backed into the corner, tired of being proven to be stupid again and again - something he does to himself, by the by, and which I merely point out half the time - he decided to go for broke, and he accused me of filth. I called him on his lie, and he has *nothing*. And everyone who looks at this thread alone will know it, to say nothing of his past moves.

But he thinks he can get away with it by going 'no u!!!!' when someone points out what a pathetic little liar he is.

Have a good look at Cult of Gnu style atheism, ladies and gentlemen. It's not just lies, not just dishonesty - it is stupidity. Inane yammerings from a man who can't understand simple blog conversations, much less science and reason, but who's convinced he's intelligent because 'me r skeptikul, that means me smart!'

Thanks for the gift as always, Skep. Lie some more - make other atheists ashamed of being on your side. ;)

im-skeptical said...

"Lie some more - make other atheists ashamed of being on your side."

Just keep spewing your vitriol. We can see who sides with you.

Crude said...

Just keep spewing your vitriol. We can see who sides with you.

Vitriol? You're the little hate-monger, Skeppy. And a liar besides.

But wait - everyone knows that now. Again - thanks. ;)