A theist is someone who believes
in the existence of a god or gods. (Remember, there are
many polytheistic religions.)
An atheist falls into one of two
categories:
A strong
atheist declares that there are no gods.
A weak atheist
declares that they do not
believe in any god.
At the end of the day all that matters is the
black and white nature of belief. When it comes to
belief in god, you either do or you don't. Period.
There are no other options. If
you're unsure or you question or you doubt, then you don't
believe -- and that makes you an atheist. End
of discussion.
An agnostic (the most misused word in this
discussion) is someone who believes that the nature of god
cannot be known, irrespective of their personal
theism.
Agnosticism asks the question: Can god be known? But this
doesn't address your position on whether or not there is a
god. Therefore, a theist can also be agnostic, and
many are. This is the only intellectually honest way to
believe in any god.
Having said this, since few know
and use the proper meaning of the word, I'll cave and from
here on use the word agnostic to refer to someone who
questions the existence of god.
I won't address the term non-theist anywhere else on this site
because the people who label themselves as such
destroy all meaning of the prefix non. These people are an
annoying logical contradiction of their own
insistence. Non-theists are theists who
want to define and embrace god on their own terms. And
the only thing "non" about them are the precepts and explicit
rules and practices that they choose reject for matters of
convenience. Theistically, they want to have their
cake and eat it too.
Christians: In Dire Need of a
Dictionary
In keeping with the
self-perpetuating delusional nature of theism, theists
(especially Christians) just love to say that atheism is a
religion. This is patently false. But for those
who can't grasp simple concepts I'll break it down for
you. Pay close attention and take notes if you
must. Religion, by definition, requires some
element of the supernatural and a
belief in a higher power --
not the lack thereof. And since atheism rejects
all notions of "god" (personal or other), atheism cannot
possibly be a religion.
Atheism is no more a religion than veganism, for
example. Vegans reject all consumption of any animal
product based on health concerns and principles of morality
(i.e. animal cruelty). Is that a religion? Unless
you're clinically deluded or have a very strange dictionary on
your bookshelf, the answer is absolutely not.
Veganism, just like atheism, is a practical belief system and
lifestyle based on logic and principle -- not the
supernatural in any way, shape, or form.
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting
stamps is a hobby." - Unknown
All this is
to say, if atheism is a religion then EVERYTHING is a
religion, and that's just plain silly.
What Atheists
Believe
Christians LOVE to say that
atheists don't believe in anything. This a very common
defensive position that theists
often take when their beliefs are threatened by
skepticism. Sorry, my deluded god-loving friends, but
atheists believe in many things. I generally try not to
speak for others (a sin reserved almost exclusively for
Christians), so from here on I'll speak for just
myself.
I believe in many things. In fact, I believe in most
of the things in which theists believe -- except in the
existence of god. I believe in the love of one's friends
and family. I believe in the inherent goodness and
morality of people. I believe that anyone who must
believe in a god to maintain their moral compass is not
an inherently good or moral person. I believe in life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that
nature is a beautiful thing and should be respected and
protected except at the expense of human life. I believe
that animals should be treated with kindness except where it
conflicts with my side order of fries. I believe in
self-determination. I believe that a woman has the
undeniable, absolute, and irrevocable right to make decisions
about her body. I believe that premeditated murder, rape
and molestation are unforgivable immoral acts. I believe
in occasional exceptions to rules. I believe that I'm
imperfect. I believe that you're more imperfect than
me. I believe in giving you a few seconds to figure that
last one out. Most importantly, I believe that porn was
better in the 70's.
I also believe that no god or gods exist. None.
Not now, not ever. That too was a statement of belief --
just in case you hadn't noticed.
"All thinking men are
atheists." - Ernest Hemingway, from A
Farewell to Arms
What Christians Believe
Well, I think that most Christians (as it
pertains to religion) BELIEVE
nothing. As I see it, most claim to KNOW.
One way or another, this is a wholly unimportant question to
me. I'm far more interested in how and why they believe. The
following few sections will address this issue.
What is
a Fact?
According to Merriam-Webster a
fact is a truth. It is based on actuality and
hinges on evidence. As such, it is something
you KNOW and therefore REQUIRES NO FAITH.
Fact: The New York Mets won the
World Series in 1986.
I don't need an ounce of faith to know this concretely proven
absolute truth. And even if I was unsure of myself,
it would still be a fact and therefore a truth.
Let's put it to a test. Let's suppose I said, "I think the Mets won the World
Series in 1986." Would it still not be a fact? Of
course it would.
People often say that they got their facts wrong, but that
statement is fundamentally false. By definition, if
you're wrong it wasn't a fact in the first place.
Think about it. Facts are truths and truths are never
wrong. Therefore, facts can never be wrong.
What is
Faith?
Faith, by definition, is the belief
in that which cannot be proven. Do you have faith that you're actually
reading this article right now, or do you know that you are?
Fact: You are reading this article
right now, and you know it.
Faith has absolutely nothing to do with it. That is
to say, no faith is necessary when you deal with facts.
|
On the sixth day
God created man. On the seventh day man returned
the favor. |
Christian Declarations
Anyone
want to argue that Christians don't declare their unwavering
faith? Anyone? Of course not. I mean, come
on. Theists and atheists alike will agree on this
obvious reality. Christians are proud of their faith,
and I suppose they should be. Good for them. Okay,
enough about Christians and their general declaration of
faith. We're all on the same page. Now let's talk
about their general beliefs.
While there are many things that Christians declare
absolutely [understatement of the millennium], the common
thread is found in the fact that they
state their beliefs as ABSOLUTE FACTS. This much
is true and wholly provable. Let's focus on just a
couple of their irrefutable declarations.
For example, a true Christian doesn't just believe that their god is the one true
god. They state their god's existence as an absolute,
irrefutable fact.
Tell me, honestly, when's
the last time you heard a Christian say, "I believe that Christ is
risen." (We both know the answer is never.)
No, this statement is always declared as an absolute
fact: "Christ is risen."
Always. And while there are countless other examples I
could cite, it's always the same. You'll also never
hear, "I believe
that Christ died for our sins."
There's absolutely no speculation or conjecture in these
very bold [read: arrogant]
statements. By stating a fact they are declaring
knowledge. They are saying that they know these things to be true.
The Big
Question
Given all this, how is it that
Christians seem to know so much
while they keep clamoring about their faith? By definition, knowledge and
intellect are in total conflict with faith. If you know
something to be true, if your intellect assures you that you
are absolutely, positively, and undeniably correct, then not
only is no faith necessary, but faith (by definition) is
logically incoherent.
For example, imagine hearing someone say, "I have faith that the Mets won the World Series
in 1986 -- and I believe it with all my heart." You'd
probably think, "The Mets did win the World Series in
86. What the hell does faith
have to do with it?" (Again, do you have faith that
you're actually reading this article right now, or do you know
that you are?)
The same logic applies to the topic of religion as it does
to sports trivia and atheist website articles, unless you
embrace logical incoherence and abandon all common sense.
So, as previously demonstrated, Christians state their
beliefs as facts. This much is true. But if faith
is the belief in that which cannot be proven, then something
is very, very wrong. It's a total contradiction.
So, again, how is it that Christians can know so much while
they keep claiming to have such great faith?
The Big
Answer
It's quite simple, really.
Believing isn't good enough. In order to believe in
something you must concede that you could be wrong. For
example, I might say, "I believe the Red Sox won the World
Series in 1997 -- but I could be wrong."
Well, guess what? The truth is, I am wrong.
When it comes to believing in any god, too much is at stake --
especially ones intellectual integrity. If I'm wrong
about the Red Sox winning the World Series in 1997, big
deal. My sports trivia skills are pathetic and I've lost
a few bar bets. Oh, the shame!
But if I spent my entire life...
- Praising a god that didn't exist
- Fearing a god that didn't exist
- Praying to a god that didn't exist
- Preaching about a god that didn't exist
- Making huge personal sacrifices (e.g. financial, sexual)
to honor a god that didn't exist
- Following inane rules against perfectly benign
activities (like eating shellfish or working on a particular
day of the week) as commanded by a god that didn't exist
- Building and endorsing global houses of worship for a
god that didn't exist
- Giving money (10% or more of your income) to an
organization that promoted a god that didn't exist
...then I'd be rightfully labeled as an easily deluded,
gullible, a fool -- just as they label everyone who doesn't
see the obvious truth of their god. (Psalm
14:1)
We're all judged by society in no small part by our
perceived and demonstrated intelligence as well as our ability
to distinguish between fantasy and reality. And if
Christians are wrong then they're delusional. Simple as
that.
Problem is, Christians can't allow even the mere
possibility of that kind of theistic egg on their
face. They can't afford to have society view
them in that light. This is why they incessantly
proselytize despite what lame and disingenuous
rationalizations and excuses they'll argue to the
contrary.
Christians claim they're on a mission to save
souls. BULLSHIT! Every public utterance of their
faith is the product of a subconscious-driven act of
intellect-saving mind masturbation. They're frantically
trying to reinforce their own delusion. This is how
it works: Repeat the mantra long enough and it will
eventually become your truth and reality. And since
there's intellectual safety in
numbers they act together. Conquer and
divide...hence the worldwide missions.
We may now define faith as that subconscious quality that
enables so many to believe what they fear to be untrue.
"We may define faith as the firm
belief in something for which there is no evidence.
Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do
not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth
is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to
substitute emotion for evidence. The substitution of
emotion for evidence is apt to lead to strife, since different
groups, substitute different emotions." - Bertrand
Russell
The Pot Calling the Kettle
Arrogant
When I've stated my positive
atheism (i.e., the belief that absolutely no god exists) in
the past, I've been asked by Christians, "How can you KNOW such a
thing?" And they'll also call such a belief
philosophically arrogant. Isn't that just
laughable? They ask me how I could "know" such a thing,
yet they declare themselves immune from the same
question! (Ask any one of them the same question
and watch for the hypocritical double-standard of
proof.)
By and large, Christians will deny such
immunity from arrogance by embracing skepticism [long
pause for comic effect], but they prove my assertion each and
every time they state their beliefs as facts without a shred of concrete proof. However, I find it
amusing that they get so defensive when I state my beliefs as facts.
Gee,
I wonder why?
It is the height of arrogance to state as absolute fact
that which cannot be proven
concretely. Now I, personally, am openly and
entirely comfortable with being labeled as arrogant in this
respect. But I'm not letting Christians off the
hook for the same offense.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but of course I don't
have total knowledge of the universe -- but neither do
Christians. And of course I can't possibly prove
concretely that no god exists -- but Christians can't prove
that theirs does. Sadly, their inability and
unwillingness to accept this truth is what also compels
them to argue the inane.
Know that neither your
passion nor belief constitutes proof. And neither
is faith nor the word of the bible. And the same applies
to the seemingly "apparent" design and order of the
universe. I'll concede that at best it's an entertaining
discussion, but it fails as proof because there's
just as much "apparent" poor design and disorder of the universe to negate
anything on the flip side.
My car has a beautiful and
complex design, and I enjoy all that it is because of its
designer and creator, BMW. This I can prove concretely,
literally, and absolutely. In fact, through its Vehicle
Identification Number I can actually trace it back to the
specific production lines and crew members who assembled and
appointed it.
The human eye also has an amazing design
and structure but there's not a shred of concrete proof (or
even compelling evidence) pointing to who or what caused
it. Who knows? Maybe, just like my car, many
things (natural processes and/or entities) were involved in
design and manufacture of the human eye. Perhaps the
Hindu creator god Brahma gave us these amazing organs of
sight.
Theories? Yes, there are many. Concrete proof? Not a
shred.
You don't have to like it, but physically and
philosophically, anything less than concrete proof is pure
conjecture and leaves the matter at hand to faith. And
I'll happily concede that the same logic applies to me as well
-- BMWs notwithstanding.
So where does that leave
us? I think both sides are equal in this respect
and fairly they cancel each other out.
But here's
the thing. I'm perfectly fine not having that proof --
whether it be concrete or something lesser. My
Christian counterparts, however, aren't quite as cozy being in
that can't-be-proven position. (This is why the field of
Christian Apologetics exists. More about them later.)
As previously
demonstrated, Christians state their beliefs (such as the
risen Jesus) as absolute
facts. If they can be so
philosophically arrogant, then
why can't I? Seems only fair. But that's the
thing. Christians aren't philosophically fair.
Belief is a one-way street to them, and theirs is the only
right way. And they think they have the right
of way [vehicular pun intended].
Christians as a
whole seem oblivious to fact that the burden of proof (of
anything in life) is ALWAYS on the
shoulders of the person making the assertion -- not the person
refuting the claim. And until that thing is absolutely
and concretely proven, it is assumed to be untrue. If I alleged that Neptune
was made entirely out of polyester, then my claim would be
considered absolutely false until I proved absolutely (and
concretely) it to be true. And until the time comes that
I can provide that proof, my assertion must (and will) remain
pure conjecture and therefore a matter of faith.
I have complete and total faith that no god or gods exist,
and that faith and conviction will never wane. If you
ask me how I could know such a thing my answer would be
substantially the same as what any Christian would
provide. (Ask a Christian if any of the Hindu gods exist
and you'll hear them reject each and every one of them,
as do I.) You see, we're not that different. I'm
no less comfortable than any Christian taking a leap of faith,
but the big difference is that I'm happy to concede that I
could be wrong.
Try getting a born-again Christian to concede that they
could be wrong, that they could be deluding
themselves because their god might not really exist.
It's likely you'll never hear it. Why? Because
rejecting the existence of an allegedly ubiquitous yet elusive
god (as I do) and ultimately being wrong doesn't compromise
ones intellect.
Spending one's life praising a god that ultimately doesn't
exist isn't intellectually safe. From a purely
intellectual standpoint, if as an atheist I'm wrong, then I'm
just a guy who didn't buy the story because there wasn't a
shred of concrete proof. On the other hand, if a theist
is wrong, then he's a gullible sucker who bought into a
silly man-made fantasy -- hook, line, and sinker. And no
one wants that rap. No one.
As atheists remain the smallest segment of the population
(theistically speaking), one thing is certainly clear:
In a world filled with militantly devout bible-thumping
theists with strong voting and political power, in today's
world it takes INFINITELY more
faith and conviction to be an atheist than to subscribe to any
flavor of religion. Don't agree? Try being a
one-man tug-of-war team at your company's next summer
outing. To say that atheists are wildly outnumbered
would be the epitome of understatements.
It's easy to be a sheep. BAAH!
"I contend that we are both
atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you
do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss
yours." - Stephen Roberts
Why
I'm an Atheist
Given my previous concession
(that I, just like my Christian counterparts, have no concrete
proof one way or another), you might argue that I'm agnostic in my beliefs -- not
atheistic. Again, if a Christian can be so arrogant in
their beliefs by stating them as absolute facts, then so can
I. Besides, agnosticism is too wishy-washy for me and
smacks of bet-hedging, so I label myself an atheist on
principle.
I am an atheist for many reasons. While I will
address each of them throughout this website, the core reasons
are stated here.
Most fundamentally, I reject the existence of any god
because the notion of a supreme being who's intimately
involved and interested in our lives (and the eternal
afterlife in bliss or anguish that logically follows) is a
patently silly man-made fantasy.
Religion is nothing
but a placebo for the scared puppies of the world and a
power trip for the power-hungry clergy. And I
refuse to suspend all common sense in favor of an obvious
fairy tale created by primitive, superstitious desert people
to control the behavior of man and quell his innate fear of
death.
Secondly, I reject all gods because I understand why people
believe in them in the first place. I understand why
people eat and sleep, and so do you. Their physical
needs must be satisfied in order to survive, and it also gives
them pleasure. I understand why people listen to music,
watch movies, read books, play sports, and engage in other
non-survival pursuits, and so do you. They seek
fulfillment, and also it gives them pleasure. And I also
understand why people believe in god. It's a no-brainer,
really. Theists just haven't figured it out yet.
Or perhaps they just don't want to.
Why People Believe in
God
Ignorant primitive people invented
god(s) to:
- Provide a crutch for their own
inherent human weakness and fear of death
- Explain the nature of the world
around them when they couldn't find logical explanations of
their own
- Control man and maintain order in
society
Basically, people get together and form a society because
they're tired of mayhem, rape, and looting. Societies
promote "the greater good" and "the general welfare."
The rules that members of a society follow to ensure the
general welfare are what we call laws. Our social
contract stipulates that we agree to abide by the laws of our
society or else we'll be excluded (e.g., jailed, exiled, etc.)
and lose all of our membership privileges.
There are two levels of moral or ethical behavior:
rule-based and principle-based. Individuals of malformed
or immature ethical development (e.g. children, gullible
adults, career criminals) need rules to know what appropriate
behavior is in a civilized society. People with a more
highly developed sense of ethical behavior don't need rules;
principles like "do unto others" are sufficient.
Critics of religion like Gore Vidal have characterized the
Judeo-Christian deity as an "angry sky god" -- typically
one that will judge and condemn you. Now I don't
know what psycho/sexual/logical need that meets but, as Karl
"Opiate of the Masses" Marx observed, religion has been pretty
good at keeping the lower classes in their place. The
extreme right wing still believes in the supreme judge ("god
is just"), but in general I think that the Christian god has
evolved more into a Santa Claus who's going to check if you've
been naughty or nice and reward or punish you accordingly.
Perhaps I'm a bit biased because I was raised in Judaism,
but it seems to me that the Jews as a whole are much more
fatalistic (and far less child-like) in their view of
god. Apparently, they've come to the realization that
being the "Chosen People" means that you get chosen for a
beating more often than the other children. But I think
the religious aspect is still important as the glue that binds
the nomadic tribal society together.
Militant Indecisiveness: Fundamentalist
Agnosticism
Technically, nothing can
truly be known. Is there a god? No one really
knows for sure. Most people think they do, but I believe
that's just wishful thinking and the confirmation bias in
play. Practically speaking, everyone on the planet is an
agnostic -– including myself. However, I call myself a
strong atheist
(i.e. there is no god, god does not exist) on principle.
(Click here if you
haven't already read why.)
I have no problem embracing the agnostic position from a
practical standpoint. But what pisses me off no less
than Christians spewing their rhetoric are these
fundamentalist agnostics who get all bent out of shape because
people like me take a hard-line approach to skepticism and the
condemnation of organized religion and the lunacy of religious
beliefs. Personally, for most of them, I think they're
just pissed off because they don't have the balls to take an
absolute position of belief one way or another. No balls
to accept, no balls to reject, no balls to even critique or
utter one word of criticism for fear of backlash. These
are the "live and let live" agnostics. But somehow that
maxim doesn't apply to their opinion of strong atheists.
Hmm. I think someone's a latent be-LEE-verrr and just too afraid
of being wrong. You never know, god just might be listening.
I direct the following to the aforementioned
fundamentalists agnostics:
An atheist is no less certain that there is no god than you
are certain, for example, that your parents love you.
Love is an intangible and cannot be proved, only
demonstrated. Disagree? People say "I love you"
all the time and don't mean it. And false demonstration
proliferates.
Agnostics question the existence
of gods, so let's talk about questioning, shall we?
Let's say you asked your spouse, "Do you love me?" and they
responded, "I don't know." Tell me, honestly, would you
take that as a yes or a no? If an immediate yes doesn't
come rolling off their tongue then the answer is no. End
of farking story. Your husband doesn't know if he loves
you? He's sitting on the fence about it? Sorry, I
think not. And it works the same way with the eternal
question at hand.
Sorry to break the news to you, but agnostics are
self-deceiving. Just like the aforementioned intangible
and unprovable love, any doubt is all doubt. God is
supposed to be eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and
omnipresent -- and you question his existence? Exactly
who are you kidding? If you question
it, then you reject it.
When it comes to trivial matters I'll happily concede the
possibility of general uncertainty. But when it comes to
the almighty creator whose existence is supposedly so evident
that even a child could see it...
ANY DOUBT
IS ALL DOUBT.
Period.
Neither Here Nor There Claims
Conviction
One agnostic wrote to me awhile
back blasting me for being close-minded (as he claims all
atheists are) and then proceeded to tell me that agnostics
have more conviction, faith, and courage than
atheists.
Um, what color is the sky in your world, Spanky?
When it comes to religious beliefs or lack thereof, by
definition, atheists have gaggles
more conviction, faith, and courage than agnostics.
Atheists reject all notions of all gods absolutely and
without reservation. Agnostics hover in open neutrality
claiming that they can't know for sure given what they know at
the moment. Um, hello? One position is absolute
and the other is indecisive. Was that not clear to
you?
I'll be the first to concede that this isn't a
pissing contest, but the argument that
open-minded uncertainly carries more faith than the
absolute rejection that atheism requires is
profoundly illogical and dishonest. In fact, it's
laughable.
Essentially what this disingenuous
bet-hedging turd said to me was [my words],
"Yes, I am militantly unsure if there is or isn't a
god. I don't know. [shrug] To me it's
neither here nor there. But the faith I have in my own
uncertainty is as strong as anything that you believe with
absolute certainty."
Please. That's just
plain silly. Uncertainty is the state of not knowing for
sure and doubt is tantamount to non-commitment.
Bottom
line, agnostics are neither here nor there.
That's not conviction, and it's sure as shit not
faith.
And as for courage, its inclusion is so profoundly
moronic that I won't justify it with a
response.
Agnosticism is easy and safe, and that's perfectly fine and
well. There's absolutely nothing wrong with shrugging
one's shoulders and saying "I don't
know." You're honest. Mazel tov!
But you earn no brownie points for taking a stand of
neutrality or non-committal indifference. So please get
off your moral high ground horse and quit claiming to have
more faith in what you believe than atheists do. You
can't possibly have faith in something that you neither accept
nor reject.
I'm done with ya. Now go outside and play with your
brother until I call you for dinner.
Fun Cool
Facts
The probable total number of
people killed in the name of god or because of some byproduct
of religion: MILLIONS and MILLIONS and
MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS and MILLIONS
The probable total number of people killed specifically in
the name of atheism (i.e. because they refused to reject
any/all gods): NONE
Before we continue, for those of you with piss-poor reading
comprehension...
First, I do not deny that certain secular communist
countries had an affinity for committing murderous
atrocities. (Okay, you read a history book. Mazel
tov.) But one thing has nothing to do with the
other.
Now go back and read the second sentence in this
section again. My wording was quite (and
deliberately) specific. I wrote, "...because they refused to reject any/all
gods."
We all know that throughout human history millions upon
millions of lives have been taken in the name of god --
including the refusal to ACCEPT
someone else's god. Atheists REJECT all notions of god. Got
it? It's a very fair comparison and the crux of the
point I was trying to make.
However, don't try to marry my statement to scattered
historical acts of genocide by communist regimes.
Remember, 95% of the the world population believes in a
supreme being in one form or another. Following your
logic, virtually all of humankind (if murdered at the hands of
any atheistic governing body) would have been killed "because
they refused to reject god." And that is an utterly
laughable postulation.
If some guy opened fire upon a
crowd at a football game, could you fairly argue that he
killed all those people because he was a football fan?
Or because they were football fans? Of course not.
One has absolutely nothing to do with another. Maybe he
was just some wacko who lived near the stadium and wanted to
kill as many people as possible in front of a live viewing
audience. Similarly, if a communist (leader) had no
specific belief in any god, it does not logically follow that
anything he said or did was motivated by atheism.
FYI, did you know that Stalin "hated" religion so much that
in 1951 he awarded "Stalin's Prize" to an English clergyman
named Hewlett Johnson? [Source: WikiAnswers]
|
H I S
T O R I C A L A C C O U N
T
Theist with weapon or
torture device asks, "Do you believe in my god?"
No.
If you don't accept
my god I
will kill you. So I ask again, do you believe in
my
god?
No.
BLAMMO! [dead
theist] |
|
W H A T N E V E
R H A P P E N E D
Atheist with weapon or torture device asks, "Do
you believe in any god?"
Yes.
If you don't reject all gods then I will kill you.
So I ask again, do you believe any god?
Yes.
BLAMMO! [dead
theist] |
Okay, the latter a silly
example, but that's my point. I'm trying to draw a clear
distinction between one believer killing another for embracing
the wrong god and a non-believer killing a believer for
embracing any god. Never happened.
Ever.
Political and socio-economic
factors caused communist atrocities (against people who just
happened to be believers), not theological ones.
Remember, NINETY THREE
PERCENT of the world population believes in a
supreme being in one form or another. I mean, who else
exactly would you expect to be the victim of such
atrocities? The other five
percent? Find some intellectual honesty,
please.
No one ever cut off someone's head or flew a
commercial airplane into a New York city tower while yelling
"There is no god!" (FYI, they yell "ALAHU AKHBAR!" God is great
indeed.) Tell me, when was the last time an atheist
strapped a bomb to his chest and blew up a nightclub because
the people inside didn't embrace evolution? Listen to
this executioner's decree and delude
yourself that atheism has taken more lives. How about a
couple of small-scale insignificant conflicts known as the
Crusades and the Holocaust? Those had nothing to do with
religion at all, right? All that mayhem and murder must
have been over a lost bar wager.
Theists, especially Christians,
hate this fact and try to dismiss it with silly arguments
about oil fields and communist regimes and other such
nonsense, but there's no getting around it. Sure, I'll
happily admit that religion has done (and still does) some
wonderful things for society (like charity and other
humanitarian efforts), but religion as a whole has also taken
more lives than any other cause in the history of
mankind.
|
ATTENTION SELF-DECEIVING
CHRISTIANS
OR ANYONE ELSE WHO
NEVER OPENED A WORLD HISTORY
BOOK
The
Christian fundamentalist mind functions at a very
primitive level. For example:
HITLER =
BAD
ATHEIST =
BAD
HITLER = ATHEIST
This
is why so many Fundies believe (or at least
want to believe) that Adolph Hitler was an
atheist. This is an utterly laughable
postulation and easily refuted by opening up an easily
obtained copy of Mein Kampf ($17.60 at Barnes
& Noble) or through a multitude of free
resources on the internet.
Here are just two of
my favorite Mein Kampf quotes that prove to
Hitler’s theology as a Christian: 
"Hence
today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself
against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the
Lord." (Page 65)
"The
folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty,
each in his own denomination, of making people stop just
talking superficially of God's will, and actually
fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be
desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their
essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His
work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine
will." (Page 562)
[clearing throat] Hitler
believed in god. End of story.
I
could cite a hundred other proofs (not that the two
above aren't more than enough), but I'll include one
more because this one is a gem. The following is
an excerpt from a speech that Hitler gave in Munich on
April 12, 1922: 
"My feelings as a Christian
points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points
me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a
few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were
and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's
truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a
fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as
a man I read through the passage which tells us how the
Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to
drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.
How terrific was His fight for the world against the
Jewish poison."
The
photo above right shows Hitler with
Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in
Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939 when
Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The
celebration was initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and
quickly became a tradition. 
Hitler's Nazi regime forced its
soldiers to wear religious symbols on their uniforms,
such as the swastika (which is of Hindu and
Buddhist origin).
Religious sayings
were also placed on their military gear. To
the left is a German army belt buckle which reads
"Gott Mit Uns." In case your German is a
bit rusty, this means "God With
Us."
Unless you're living in total denial of
all that is glaringly obvious, this is undeniable proof
of Hitler's religious charge. 
Hitler
worked closely with Pope Pius in converting
Germanic society and supporting the church. The
Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of
their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings
in public education.
Here you can see Catholic
clergy and Nazi officials, including Joseph Goebbels
(far right) and Wilhelm Frick (second from right) give
the Nazi salute.
Hitler affirmed the Christian
faith, never shut down a Christian church, and
claimed that his actions during the war were fully
consistent with biblical teachings and its
commandments. 
With
just a few clicks of the mouse you can
find hundreds of other historically documented
proofs on your own, which I encourage you to
do.
Know
that you will also find tons of Christian
propaganda that frantically tries to refute this, but
that’s certainly expected.
Many
claim that Hitler was just "playing the part"
to appease and sway those in his command who believed in
god. (Laughable, isn't it?) This is nothing
more than a knee-jerk reaction to keep such atrocities
away from the name of god, that’s all. But sweet
dreams to those who choose to delude
themselves.
Click here and here for
more proof that Hitler was a
Christian. |
As they say in law, res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself").
Hitler believed in the Judeo-Christian god and accepted Jesus
Christ as his personal lord and savior.
Period.
But for all those deluded and
misguided armchair historians who love to argue that people
have been killed in the name of atheism -- an utterly
laughable position, I offer up this comment (an email excerpt)
from Cliff Walker of Positive Atheism Magazine:
| Had you studied Russian history
and culture, you would not be saying something like
this. But you have not studied Russian history and
culture; instead, you are cloaking your hatred and
bigotry as a pretense for knowledge of Russian history
and culture. And had you been a student of Russian
history and culture, you would be talking about
Communism combined with a certain Russian cultural
idiosyncrasy. You certainly would not be talking about
atheism. This is because atheism is simply the absence
of a god-belief, regardless of the reason, regardless of
the vehemence (or lack thereof) with which the atheism
is held, and regardless even of the atheist's own
awareness (or lack thereof) that she or he is an
atheist. As such, atheism transcends all ideologies
(except theism) and is almost always incidental to each
of these ideologies.
Most
importantly, there's no explaining any of this to a
person who would do all this without first checking the
facts -- an armchair historian, sociologist, and
philosopher, all wrapped into one, if you will.
Communism, when practiced as a religion, combined with
Russian culture, was the fatal combination. Atheism was
incidental to the whole thing. Had Stalin held his
atheism like I hold mine, he would have (1) never been
accepted as a leader of the Soviet Union, and (2) never
permitted the execution of even a single criminal or
rebel.
Ah, but
Stalin was much more of a Communist than he was an
atheist. And Stalin was much more of a Russian than he
was either a Communist or an Atheist. His atheism was
incidental to both -- if he was even an atheist at all!
Yes, I said if he was an atheist, because we don't know
what Stalin's real feelings were. He did not start out
as the Premier of Russia but grew up as a boy and
advanced his way through the Soviet military. During any
phase of his growth, education, military service, and
political leadership, for him to admit any religious
faith could have been fatal to his goals, fatal to his
leadership, and probably even fatal to his body at one
point. If he was religious, then he, like virtually all
who suffered under that regime, kept his mouth shut
tight. Atheism was enforced because it was the most
scientific and because it is almost impossible to form
an atheistic movement of any kind (particularly a
rebellious movement), whereas religions are very
conducive to swaying the membership over to specific
ideas and loyalties and thus make dangerous enemies of
the state.
In other
words, the Communists leaders chose atheism: atheism
neither created nor encouraged
Communism!
Of
course, trying to explain any of this to people whose
understanding of atheism came from the pulpit, from an
apologetics video, from radio talk shows, or from
television shows (not necessarily "The 700 Club"), would
be like trying to administer medicine to the dead,
apologies to Thomas Paine.
For this
reason, I will keep my reply short and sweet so that our
readers can be inspired to pick up a scholarly article
(or three) on Russian history and Russian culture (or
perhaps even hold some lengthy dialogues with Russians,
as I often do, seeing as how I live in the Russian
section of Portland, Oregon).
Perhaps
our readers will then be able to see what it took for a
man to be held as an effective leader by the Russian
public (as if the Soviet ballots ever listed more than
one candidate for any given office).
The
question in that culture and in those times is this: How
many criminals and "rebels" and such would a man need to
slaughter before the Russian populace would hail him as
their powerful leader, march in a parade, and sing
patriotic songs about him, etc.?
But
explaining this is a waste of effort, which is why my
sending this to you is but a mere formality, done in
honor of Positive Atheism's policy and for no other
reason. It is not my burden to provide for you an
education in history, culture, or
atheism. |
"I do not feel obliged to believe
that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and
intellect, had intended for us to forgo their
use." - Galileo Galilei
Copyright © 2004 The Godless Bastard. All
Rights
Reserved.
