A theist is someone who believes
in the existence of a god or gods. (Remember, there are
many polytheistic religions.)
Example: "I believe in the
Judeo-Christian god."
An atheist is someone who
believes that no gods exist. Simply stated, an atheist
rejects all gods (i.e. any notion of god).
Example: "There is no
god." - or -
"I do not believe in god."
A non-theist is someone who does
not reject the existence of a god or gods, but has no specific
belief in any god or gods.
Example: "I don't follow a
specific religion, but rather a philosophy of how to live
life."
An agnostic is someone who
questions the existence of a god or god. Simply stated,
an agnostic neither accepts nor rejects any god.
Example: "I don't know if god
exists."
Right or wrong, that's my
simplified take on it.
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. cruelty toward animals). Is that a religion?
Certainly not -- lest you be pathetically disingenuous.
In this sense, both atheism and veganism are practical belief
systems and lifestyles based on logic and principle --
and not the supernatural in any way, shape, or
form.
If atheism is a religion then EVERYTHING is a religion, and
that's just silly.
"All thinking men are
atheists." Ernest Hemingway, from A Farewell
to Arms
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 in a good
cheap bottle of wine and classic 1970's porn videos.
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.
"He is less remote from
the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is
wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson
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 five 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 absolutely 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.
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. Hell, 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 specific 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.
A true Christian, for example, doesn't just believe that their god is the one true
god; they state their god's existence as an absolute fact (represented as
faith). Tell me, when's the last time
you heard a Christian say, "I believe
that Christ is risen." Hmm? They
state it as an absolute fact: "Christ is risen." In the
exact same manner you don't hear, "I
believe that Christ died to save us from sin."
There's absolutely no speculation or conjecture in these
very bold [read: arrogant]
statements. By stating a fact they are declaring
knowledge. That is to say, 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 (passively) declare themselves immune from the same
question! By and large, Christians will deny such
immunity by (allegedly) embracing skepticism, but they prove
my assertion each and every time they state their beliefs as
facts without a shred of concrete
proof. I find it so 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
completely and entirely comfortable being labeled as arrogant
in this respect, but I'm not letting Christians off the
hook for the same offense.
Of course I don't have total knowledge of the universe, but
neither do Christians. Of course I can't possibly prove
concretely that no god exists, but Christians can't prove
concretely that their god exists either. Belief itself
certainly isn't proof. Faith isn't proof. The word
of the bible isn't proof. The sometimes apparent design
and order of the universe isn't proof. (At the very
best it's an entertaining argument, but it certainly isn't
proof.) There's also just as much apparent poor design and disorder 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 created our
eye.
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 nothing
more than pure conjecture, and it leaves the matter at hand to
nothing more than true and pure faith. Again, I'll
concede that the same logic applies to me as well -- BMWs
notwithstanding, obviously. So where does that leave
us? I think both sides are equal in this respect, so,
fairly, they cancel each other out.
But here's the thing: I'm absolutely fine not having that
concrete proof. My Christian counterparts, however,
aren't quite as cozy being in that position. This is why
the field of Christian Apologetics exists.
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 and man-made fantasy. Simply stated, I
refuse to suspend all common sense in favor of an obvious
fairy tale created by primitive 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
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 immature
ethical development (e.g. children, gullible adults, career
criminals, etc.) 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 god as an "angry sky god", typically one that
will judge or condemn you. 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 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 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. Ya 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 the notion of god absolutely and agnostics
don't know. Hello? One is absolute, the other is
indecisive. Is that not clear to you?
I'll be the first to concede that this isn't a pissing
contest, but the argument that agnostic doubt
carries more of the aforementioned than an
atheist's absolute rejection is profoundly flawed and
illogical. Essentially what he's saying is [my words],
"Yes, Andy, 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 and doubt is as strong as anything in which you
believe absolutely." 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 never denied 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 on this page again. My wording
was quite 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 FIVE
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. Sorry, kids. He wasn't. Not
even close. He was in fact a friend of
Jesus.
This
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."
Click
here for
more proof that Hiltler was a
Christian. |
As they say in law, res ipsa loquitur. ("The thing speaks for itself.") You
don't have to like it, but it's a fact, Jack. Yeah, I
don't like it much either.
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.
