If an aethist kills a religious family because he fears that the religous person is spreading murderous dogma, then it is aethism's fault? I cannot buy the cata-logic you use... then that means that every murder is something's fault...

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since November 15th, 2006" href="http://videosift.com/member/campionidelmondo"><STRONG style="COLOR: #2180e2">campionidelmondo
Again, being crazy doesn't mean you're violent. Crazed violence needs a catalyst.
      1.)   She wouldn't have thought to murder her kids [today at least] if she didn't think the world was ending.
      2.)   Her religion made her think the world was ending.
Therefore, her religion is to blame for her crazed violent episode.
Religion fucks people's minds up. Plain & simple.
If you wanna defend "Spirituality", that's a whole other topic.

That's easy, Thomas Jefferson!

But tell me, would this girl be wiser and less ignorant as an aethist? I doubt it, but that's all I hear. "Aethism breeds ignorance..." Or perhaps, people have always been such?

Oh, and I think this vid has been posted before...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Atheists need to be more willing to acknowledge America's historical roots. America's formative underpinnings were always steeped in Judeo-Christian values. The 10 commandments are THE document that epitomizes the origins of both values and laws for that culture. Atheists need to lighten up in that respect. To have a courthouse want to pay homage to one of the most important documents in Judeo-Christian legal history is not a big deal.

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning, the entire idea that Judeo-Christian values are the foundation of our country.

It's circular logic:
1. There are Christian referances on our money and landmarks so that's proof our country was founded on Christianity.
2. Our country was founded on Christianity so we should be allowed to put more Christian referances on our money and landmarks.

So, no...it is not reasonable or acceptable to place Christian symbols in government locations because it gives the appearance the two are linked and misleads people into making the assumptions you appear to have made.

The historical facts don't even support the belief that the country was founded on Christianity. In so far as Christian values were involved, the values you're talking about are basically common across all religions and philosophies. It can reasonably be argued that any 'proof' of the involvement of Christianity in the founding of our country is more accurately evidence of the predominance of Christianity in the culture at the time. It's like saying our country was founded on slavery and the proof is the common use of slaves at the time.

Also consider that more than a few of the founding fathers of our country appear to have been Aetheists. Perhaps the Aethists have a better argument that the country was founded on Aethism and that the Christians subverted the original intention of the founders somewhere around the mid 20th century. But no, the fact is that the founding of this country was a secular endeavor devoid of religious influence and the founding fathers went to considerable lengths to point this out. It's only by willfully ignoring the facts of the matter that anyone can make a claim of Christian underpinnings.

It looks like the Theists hi-jacked this country in the 1940's and the Secularists are now taking it back.

Nice.

My personal answer: Hitler was a Christian, Stalin an Atheist and Travolta a Scientologist. Their atrocities/bad movies are independent actions and should not be used as proof positive that their theological beliefs are evil.

And, to bring us back to do, my original point was only to correct the erroneous notion that Hitler 'was' OR 'considered himself to be' an Atheist.

I guess we have different definitions.

I love a good chat about religion. Hit me up anytime.

In reply to this comment by Thylan:
Triming this for readability.

I dont know enough about Stalin, the reasons for attributing Atheism to him, the interpretation of atheism, and how his actions corelate or diverge, their relivance in praising/condemning his actions, or, his interpretations of communism, comuist dogma, or the "ideals of free thought" whatever they may be...

But, i assume (and .'. make an ass of myself) that you are referring to ideas similar to those referred too here.

My response, as best i can, is that to be Human, is to claim the capacity for both "humanity" (a bloody fuzzy term, but you get what i mean) and inhumanity (equally bloody fuzzy. we come up with ridiculous words to describe things. "that which is good is "our species"" and "that which is bad is our species not being itself" English is ridiculous)

anyway...

any person is capable of any action, be it good bad, boring irrelevant or cool. He/She can claim any dogma/reason/label/ideology for whatever they do. Their claiming it means bugger all. It might be an accurate claim (meaning, a majority would agree that the behavior of theirs, that they claim, is indeed an expression of/in accord with those beliefs, and does indeed match with their own judgment of what those beliefs are defined by), but thats not very relevant either.

A "dogma/reason/label/ideology" is simply what it is, and, what a person does, or does not do, is distinct again.

So.. to your question, as best i misunderstand it.

"does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism" -> did HE claim Aethism? is that why it might be there, to be taken away? or did others claim it of him? (my hazy guess would be that he'd claim it but i dont know an exact quote to that effect)

Either way, one can disagree with the attribution/applicability of that label, if it is felt, that what they sought to do, was not in accord with the label. So, if your understanding of atheism, was such, that you felt, that his attempts to express it, did not ring true to the term, as you understand it, you could deny him his atheism for that reason. if i felt it, so could I.

Theres an interesting thread looking at how language evolves over time, and grammar rules. Its relevant, because the term atheism, is a label, the meaning of which is semi fluid, as our culture is semi fluid. We might be able to broadly agree, in the majority, what it means, but some are likely to want to add shades of meaning, and other people, other shades. Whats interesting, is to ask a specific person, what their personal understanding, and interpretation would be, so as to learn about that person (all that can ever be learned).

so, i'd consider it meaningful to ask a specific person, if they would deny, the application of the atheism label to stalin, but for the reasons given at the start, I'm personally unable too, not being sufficiently knowledgeable of him to know if the label (according to my fuzz interpretation of the label) fits or not. The 2 primary variables, are what i know of him. and, how i define the term.

next part...

"because"

the above was my attempt to explain how i'd consider it possible for a person, to give their view, on fi the term applys or not. the because makes what fallows, a potential reason for determining if it applys.

so, what reason are you proposing:

"his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought"

do YOU consider "the ideals of free thought" to be fundamental to your understanding of the label "atheism"

do YOU consider "his communist dogma" to be sufficiently indicative of his being/actions/personality, that NO label can be applied to him, unless, it can be applied to "his communist dogma" too, as that is so fundamental too him.

so, youve asked of me only a question you can answer for yourself. Does your understanding of atheism, mean, that "the ideals of free thought" are fundamental to it, and, that they conflict with "his communist dogma", which you consider fundamental to him, such that, you feel the label "atheist" as you understand it, cannot be applied to him, to the extend that you know and understand "his communist dogma" and thus, in your view, him.

so... do you?

This gets back tot he first question i asked of you, namely, did you feel Hitler "was" or simply "thought he was"

For me, I'd imagine he might well have "thought he was", truly truly thought that. i dont know if he had "belief in Christ as their personal savior".

I do know he was a jackass, but i dont win points for that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
(BTW, great conversation.)

So, does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism because his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought?

Triming this for readability.

I dont know enough about Stalin, the reasons for attributing Atheism to him, the interpretation of atheism, and how his actions corelate or diverge, their relivance in praising/condemning his actions, or, his interpretations of communism, comuist dogma, or the "ideals of free thought" whatever they may be...

But, i assume (and .'. make an ass of myself) that you are referring to ideas similar to those referred too here.

My response, as best i can, is that to be Human, is to claim the capacity for both "humanity" (a bloody fuzzy term, but you get what i mean) and inhumanity (equally bloody fuzzy. we come up with ridiculous words to describe things. "that which is good is "our species"" and "that which is bad is our species not being itself" English is ridiculous)

anyway...

any person is capable of any action, be it good bad, boring irrelevant or cool. He/She can claim any dogma/reason/label/ideology for whatever they do. Their claiming it means bugger all. It might be an accurate claim (meaning, a majority would agree that the behavior of theirs, that they claim, is indeed an expression of/in accord with those beliefs, and does indeed match with their own judgment of what those beliefs are defined by), but thats not very relevant either.

A "dogma/reason/label/ideology" is simply what it is, and, what a person does, or does not do, is distinct again.

So.. to your question, as best i misunderstand it.

"does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism" -> did HE claim Aethism? is that why it might be there, to be taken away? or did others claim it of him? (my hazy guess would be that he'd claim it but i dont know an exact quote to that effect)

Either way, one can disagree with the attribution/applicability of that label, if it is felt, that what they sought to do, was not in accord with the label. So, if your understanding of atheism, was such, that you felt, that his attempts to express it, did not ring true to the term, as you understand it, you could deny him his atheism for that reason. if i felt it, so could I.

Theres an interesting thread looking at how language evolves over time, and grammar rules. Its relevant, because the term atheism, is a label, the meaning of which is semi fluid, as our culture is semi fluid. We might be able to broadly agree, in the majority, what it means, but some are likely to want to add shades of meaning, and other people, other shades. Whats interesting, is to ask a specific person, what their personal understanding, and interpretation would be, so as to learn about that person (all that can ever be learned).

so, i'd consider it meaningful to ask a specific person, if they would deny, the application of the atheism label to stalin, but for the reasons given at the start, I'm personally unable too, not being sufficiently knowledgeable of him to know if the label (according to my fuzz interpretation of the label) fits or not. The 2 primary variables, are what i know of him. and, how i define the term.

next part...

"because"

the above was my attempt to explain how i'd consider it possible for a person, to give their view, on fi the term applys or not. the because makes what fallows, a potential reason for determining if it applys.

so, what reason are you proposing:

"his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought"

do YOU consider "the ideals of free thought" to be fundamental to your understanding of the label "atheism"

do YOU consider "his communist dogma" to be sufficiently indicative of his being/actions/personality, that NO label can be applied to him, unless, it can be applied to "his communist dogma" too, as that is so fundamental too him.

so, youve asked of me only a question you can answer for yourself. Does your understanding of atheism, mean, that "the ideals of free thought" are fundamental to it, and, that they conflict with "his communist dogma", which you consider fundamental to him, such that, you feel the label "atheist" as you understand it, cannot be applied to him, to the extend that you know and understand "his communist dogma" and thus, in your view, him.

so... do you?

This gets back tot he first question i asked of you, namely, did you feel Hitler "was" or simply "thought he was"

For me, I'd imagine he might well have "thought he was", truly truly thought that. i dont know if he had "belief in Christ as their personal savior".

I do know he was a jackass, but i dont win points for that.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
(BTW, great conversation.)

So, does that mean I can take away Stalin's Atheism because his communist dogma doesn't stand up to the ideals of free thought?