Be warned, this theist has some very odd ideas, he's not the usual type, and admits to some of the errors of his faith, but has since shown a total contempt for humanist ideals, and an unorthodox but still complete enslavement to his theism. He's touchy, and almost made me feel guilty for my attack on his principles, but nothing he said makes any difference. For all his realisations he's just as deluded as any other theist, and his posts have appalled many non-xtians.

The debate began with others being optimistic about theists facing up to the past of their faith.

ME

Dream on, xtians are the original holocaust deniers, its practically part of their doctrine, just ask goldie or CIL, or Mad Gerbil, just watch them squirm out of it. It was this ethical abomination that first turned me against organised religion. The more you dig the worst it gets, and I see it happening again, unless the Yankee xtian fundys are stopped, let alone the Muslim ones.

P.S. I bet they'll try to bring up communism's death toll if they bother to respond, you just watch. Or the "true" xtians dodge, or else politics, take your pick.

Justified hatred, it is just to hate mass murder and tyranny, also certain institutions, just never people.

I'm referring to all the atrocities committed by their faith, there is more than one holocaust for the Jews, as well as for many other groups unfortunate enough to fall under the shadow of the cross. I regard it as imperative to constantly remind others of the reason why xtianity is so despised. And that is because there is no one either personally or in their family's past who haven’t been hurt by them. Their crimes take a very long time to count, but they must be counted for the good of all.

Talk to a neo-nazi, they either deny their genocide took place or was committed by those who were not "true" followers of Hitler, the exact same reasons given by xtians for the crusades, or inquisition, or pogroms. It is by far the most worrying thing about them.

Mad Gerbil

It's all true.
What is even more shocking are the atheist songs we sing, which you've not heard. Of course, they are only available to True Christians™.

My favorite verse to the Atheist version of the Battle Hymn of the Republic (when we Christians are fantasizing about war with Atheists) is verse 53 which says it all:

(Sing along if you know the tune)

I have seen the last Atheist a runnin' for his life
He surely will be dead soon since I've a gun and he a knife,
Then the theocracy we build will supress all human rights,
Our truth is marching on.

Don't tell anyone I shared that with you.
I've already been marked as a possible Atheist collaborator simply by hanging out here in the first place.

ME

MG, I’ve actually heard songs very similar to that, and I don’t find them very funny, you guys just love the idea of "sinners" and heathens burning forever, as you kick it up in you paradise. You feed on fear and hatred of outsiders, and all look forward to being the few judged righteous, and in the mean time, you lie cheat and hurt everyone in order to bring about you fantasy kingdom, while reality sufferers. I have samples of sermons were pain and agony are extolled as virtues, and compassion is a sin, your inhumane ideology is not welcome here.

Trust a theist to make jokes about genocide. Tasteless, and irritating, you really are a "true" xtian. If you can’t contribute anything meaningful to a very serious topic, shut your god-loving yap.

Why is every discussion about mass murder and human rights violations is seen by xtians as an excuse to tell jokes? What wrong with them?

Just carry on side stepping the issue, you don’t address the points raised, and only avoid the usual cliques, because they were anticipated, I’d like for once a thoughtful theistic response on your faith’s record, just this once, try to act like a decent human being.

Mad Gerbil

Bhor:

You've claimed these things:
1) Christians are to a man, liars.
2) Christians are to a man, blood-thirsty.
3) Christians are to a man, deceived.

I learned long ago that communicating with someone who is convinced you are a disillusioned liar bent on bloodshed and destruction -- who is convince you actually enjoy the idea of dear friends and family in hell -- I learned there is nothing I can say to that person that won't somehow be twisted into a confirmation of all that the listener already knows.

In fact, I have to wonder why you'd bother asking a blood-thirsty, disillusioned liar bent on deciet a question, especially after you already know the responses.

To Others Who Read This Thread:

1) If someone claims to be killing Jews in the name of Christ that person may or may not be a True Christian™. The trueness of their Christianity, however, is irrelevent because what they are doing is unequivocally WRONG -- such is my understanding of absolute truth.

2) If someone writes or sings a song that communicates approval for the idea of Christians marching forward in a physical sense and killing unbelievers, that person may or may not be a True Christian™. The trueness of their Christianity, however, is irrelevent because what they are doing is unequivocally WRONG -- such is my understanding of absolute truth. (I make an exception for obvious jokes, Broke Free and I will hang together -- you don't have to sit at our table)

3) If someone denies the Holocaust or the Crusades occurred and likewise deny that those incidents resulted in the death of hundreds, thousands, and millions of innocent people and that many of these atrocities where carried out by those claiming to be Christian and those who were actually True Christians that someone is living in a state of denial and unequivocally WRONG -- such is my understanding of absolute truth.

4) If someone works to deny others the ability to choose how they wish to believe about God through physical force, torture, or manipulation or any other means than merely sharing thoughts and ideas respectfully and honestly that person, whether True Christian or not is unequivocally WRONG -- such is my understanding of absolute truth.

5) True Christians and those merely claiming to be True Christians have tortured, raped, murdered, looted, and committed every imaginable injustice while invoking the name of God, Jesus Christ, the Cross and so forth. Anyone who denies that is unequivocally WRONG -- such is my understanding of absolute truth.

6) I have, as a claimed True Christian, attempted to manipulate others in inappropriate ways in order to feed my own ego, advance my standing in the Church, and otherwise participate in a sort of Spiritual Rape --- of which I've repented and strive not to repeat. The point being, I not only agree that these things occur at the hands of True Christians and those who claim the title, but have done the same myself and admit it here today.

These actions are not to be denied.
These actions are not to be hidden from light.

I hope I've made myself VERY CLEAR.

ME

AT LAST!

I’ve managed to get a decent response out of a theist, praise be!

MG, why couldn’t you have responded to the opening post like that in the first place?

It is important to establish where a theist stands, just how deluded they are, and your first post merely showed your tasteless humour, and immaturity. Now you have switched your mind on we can have a decent debate.

This is all I ask, for a theist to act like an adult, and quit with the mocking and condescending bullshit that makes up the majority of theists post here.

We are not here to be saved or to hear your theological dogma, we know your faith’s dark side and your false promises and we reject them. Most theists seem unable to accept that, or understand our reasons for hating their faith, they can't acknowledge there's anything wrong with xtianity. You have at least made the attempt, though you're unaware just how deep all this immorality goes.

See point one.


I know what I’m talking about, I know were ALL the bodies are buried when it comes to xtianity, I’ve been studying your human rights record for over 15 years, there is no possible way you can defend it, I just enjoy seeing all you theists try. Although the idea of defending any record like that gives me the creeps, and tells me something about your priorities. I personally wouldn't wish to be part of an institution were I had to that, but there you go, you obviously failed to do your homework before you sighed up for the paradise and invisible friend. You never gave xtianity's history a second thought when you joined, and have grown so emotionally attached that you are driven to defend it, no matter the moral implications. The rational and ethical thing would have been to investigate which organisation had the best history of humane behaviour, and join that, but neither reason nor ethics have anything to do with a persons conversion to faiths like xtianity.

No, the reasons are far less noble. You weren't looking, (assuming you are the minority of theists who actually had a choice) for a group that would benefit life, but immortality, utopia, safety, "answers", (no matter if they weren't truth), and submission to control. Greed is the basis of voluntary faith, not anything ethically or rationally defensible, nobody joined xtianity who've actually learnt anything about it. But you don’t see it as joining an institution, created and run my people with abhorrent methods of control and recruitment, but getting to a deity, being "saved". Your blindness to reality means you are part of an evil who's true nature is obvious to anyone from outside, but not to those who focus on the promises and illusions, and who's faith depend on being able to ignore, or explain away all these uncomfortable realties of theism. These explanations are for you, never for anything else, and they only work on those who want them to work.

The facts dictate my opinions, this is not bigotry, this is humanitarianism, with balls, aimed at discrediting all those organisations incapable of decent behaviour, in other words my humanism means I’m duty bound to show everyone the truth about xtianty. Simple as that.

Mad Gerbil

Bhor:

The reason you didn't get a response like that in the first place is because I don't typically write responses to people who accuse me of being a closet Nazi without even knowing me.

The joke post was for people like I BROKE FREE and others who know me and don't fly off the deep end every time I try and have a little fun here. Likewise, I invite I BROKE FREE and others to pick on me in a similar fashion.

It is impossible for me to write a post that will speak to everyone where they are at.

I will disagree with you on one point. You say:

Sir.

I cannot imagine a worse crime than spiritual rape. As a victim and a predator on this level I can assure you I am completely aware of the complete an utter depths of HELL to which a person will descend in order to rub their spiritual penis the right way.

You can kill my children.
You can physically rape my wife.
You can cut me to pieces very slowly.

Do that and you will not have done half the evil I've done and have been exposed to in the name of God. You can pack up your 15 years of research and you can pack up your charts, factoids, and evidence and present it to me and I can believe and comprehend every shred of it and be not one iota more convinced of the potential to do evil in the name of Christ than I've done with my own hands.

You don't know who you are talking to and I'll thank you to stop assuming things about me and my experiences that you cannot possibly know.

Nothing here I've written exaggerates my feelings on the subject nor my objective, rational assessment of what I've endured. In fact, I do not fear anything in life anymore because I'm convinced I've seen the worst of it.

I'm done communicating with you and I cannot believe I was suckered into responding in the first place just so you could berate me with more unfounded accusations. While I can appreciate why someone would feel the need to vent I'm not here to be the object of it.

ME

MG, you misunderstand the purpose of my tirade.

Let’s try this again, if you are emotionally hurt by my words, then I suggest we work to understand each other, my position and knowledge is not negated by your own experience but should be added to it, as I’d prefer a theistic ally to an enemy.

If you wish to give up on this debate before it's even begun, then you don't understand the points I am trying to make. It is in your own interest to continue a dialogue. I’m not a raving moron, but a very determined humanist, and one who knows more than you think.

I have fallen into the habit of explaining everything to the theist I’m debating with, out of necessity for the most part. If you are already aware of the things I list, then we can speed things up a bit, it is not a reason to discontinue the debate however. My seeming ignorance, is derived my dumbing down my posts, if you are a higher calibre, then I will go up a gear accordingly, but don’t assume you understand me either. You are not the usual type of theist, but I’m just as different to most atheists.

Even if you do acknowledge the "spiritual" or should I say psychological crimes all theists and even you commit, fine, but unless you realise the falsehood of ALL xtianity you will continue to commit them, as ultimately there is no salvation there. If you really care about humanity, then please detail your current theistic state, and I will be able to point out potential flaws, and danger. I can assure you I DO know what I’m talking about, and only have humanity’s best interest at heart, even yours.

While one remains a theist the potential for humane action remains, this is the point I’m trying to get across. That no matter how aware of theism’s problems you may be, and I may believe your experiences to be as bad as mine, it is intrinsic to a spiritual philosophy, as any focus away from the physical, and naturalistic realities harms others as a result.

If you have already come part of the way there, then you need to come all the way to complete your freedom, and moral enlightenment. This is not preaching, but I must clarify my position, which you have chosen to dislike, as you see it as an ignorant attack on you.

My generalisations on theism apply regardless of who you are, or you experiences, so try not to use you personal subjective understanding to attack an objective truth, I am right, even if you are not like most theists, the point remains, there are no exceptions.

Theism warps the nature of immorality. You claim to be aware of the depths of evil theism is capable of causing, well so am I, although I have never committed religious crimes I have witness and experienced many, and my anger is as justified as yours.

But this is a result of you theistic affliction, as you see things from a bias that does not reflect reality, there's nothing "spiritual" in this world, and this focus on such things means you miss what is really important. The real physical and moral crimes I mentioned are still arguably more important that whatever you think you are guilty of, I am still not clear about what exactly you have done, as you still put things in religious terms. I’m about realty, and you need to see that that’s all I care about, I can be of assistance, and just because I am on a search and destroy operation in general, doesn’t mean all theist are my enemies.

I don't do personal attacks but criticise a persons theistic position or words, as well as what their beliefs have turned them into, I’d rather free them than destroy them. I was demonstrating the immorality that makes up the majority of xtian theism, if you understand this, then bully for you, but don’t assume I don’t understand you, as my points stand regardless of how much of the truth you acknowledge. Until you accept it all, I still have a job to do.

Don’t bet on it, I thought that once, then I got a major wake up call, there’s always something worse out there. Your world-weariness makes you assume to be the voice of experience, I have seen horrors that were enough to drive people insane, and yet I’m always prepared for even worse. Why do you think I’m so militant? Read too many posts here? Nothing I’ve heard here compares to the evil I have known, and I’ve no wish to have us compare experiences, needless to say, if you respect my understanding I’ll respect yours, for the most part.


I’d advise you to respond again, as I am here to learn well as teach. I make no apologies for speaking the truth, even if you are offended, as it is more important to speak for humanity, then worry about anyone else’s felling, if I did that, then I’d make one lousy humanitarian. Even if I was wrong in your case, which you have shown I was not in your responses, the point remains, the immorality of religion needs to be stated, and no individuals may object just because they feel they no better than most. You’ve seen hell, well so have millions of others, you at least have your life, and can make amends, I speak for the victims who can’t, and against all those who continue the charade.

JimmyDtD

Onward Christan Soldiers was written in 1865, long after any crusades.

Here is a memoir of the author:

Baring-Gould wrote about this hymn:

Whit-Mon­day is a great day for school fes­tiv­als in York­shire. One Whit-Mon­day, thir­ty years ago, it was ar­ranged that our school should join forc­es with that of a neigh­bor­ing vil­lage. I want­ed the child­ren to sing when march­ing from one vil­lage to another, but couldn’t think of any­thing quite suit­a­ble; so I sat up at night, re­solved that I would write some­thing myself. "Onward, Christ­ian Sol­diers" was the re­sult. It was writ­ten in great haste, and I am afraid some of the rhymes are faulty. Cer­tain­ly no­thing has sur­prised me more than its pop­u­lar­i­ty. I don’t re­mem­ber how it got print­ed first, but I know that very soon it found its way into sev­er­al col­lect­ions. I have writ­ten a few other hymns since then, but only two or three have be­come at all well-known.

ME

You seem to think the crimes of the past won’t be the crimes of the future. History has not come to an end for xtianity, it will repeat and songs like this may inspire future horrors. The original intent is irrelevant, the results are what matter.

Mad Gerbil

Bhor:

A question:
You regard all religious belief as evil -- apparently because it is a belief in what is not reality -- and that evil or illusion invariably brings forth violence like unto that which you have cataloged for 15 years.

(I would agree that illusion is a form of evil (immorality) and that one error usually leads to another --- so much so that one may almost say one evil always leads to another. So we are on the same page there, I believe, in that non-truth isn't ammoral and leads to pain.)

Assuming I understood you there, that would make preaching a form of hate speech. The preacher may not even be aware that he is speaking hatred but he is in fact spreading an illusion that invariably leads to violence.

In Germany, because of a past history of violence, the Nazi party isn't allowed to hold public meetings nor are they allowed to spew their filth. (such is my understanding). One doesn't see large Nazi party headquarters being erected anywhere either.

So the question is, based on your evidence and conclusions would you be for a resolution that forbids the spread of the Christian faith, the establishment of Churches and public gathererings of Christians?

If NO, then are you against Nazi's gathering and holding pep rallies? Why would you allow one group with a history of violence to meet but not the other with even a longer history of violence?

If YES, please explain the extent to which you would limit free speech and the activity of theists.

----------------------------------------------------------------

If I mis-represented your position on the way to getting to the question, please restate your positions and then answer the question if you are so inclined. Also, please work on brevity a wee bit. I'll attempt to not use your brevity as a means of circumventing your intended meaning.

ME

MG, Great you decided to respond, I thought I'd lost you.

Now hopefully we get an interesting dialogue going. I will do my best to state my position as clearly as possible, as you definitely deserve to hear my entire philosophy. If you have read my essays, many of which are posted on this site, you understand something of where I am coming from. I believe in an absolute moral imperative, a service to mankind, and nothing else. To me morality is about what reduces human suffering, and preserves human life, that is it's purpose, and nothing else.

The problem with religion is that they have these pseudo-ethical concepts which are based more on theology than actual humanity, or any degree of moral understanding to be found in any humanistic philosophy. And when I say humanistic I don't just mean secular, I mean things like Buddhism, certain forms of secular Judaism, Epicureanism and Sikhism, all of which have demonstrated they can behave perfectly ethically, even with a spiritual existence, because they put the ethical principles first, ahead of the theology.

But still, I would like ultimately to see a world free of non-naturalistic worldviews, as the less of that kind of thing we have, the safer humanity will be. If you're going to claim to be moral, you might as well go all the way, as no concept directly related to humanity or ethics has any ultimate worth. All the spiritual and theological mumbo-jumbo, cannot be demonstrated to provide concrete ethical benefits, and is merely pretty distractions for the masses, leaving aside the fact that none of these things are in any way actually true.


This is the crux of the matter, mankind is an objective reality, all religion is subjective, there is no empirical or rational evidence or proof in any claim any religion has ever made, it is either meaningless or carefully crafted falsehood. The only truth within religion is its ethical principles, which are corrupted by theology and rendered either inert or inverted. If you study the crusades you see that the bishops and popes manage to use theology to justify any moral outrage. They were able to twist and reinterpret doctrine to serve any given purpose, and I do mean any. Theology is basically a green light to do whatever you wish, or to be more precise what ever the religious institution in question wishes. The "enlightened" self-interest of the institutions are what shape religious history, not in any way anything divine or spiritual. Humanity is real, the religious institutions are real, morality in it's effects is real, everything else is a fantasy. That is why I only concern myself with what these real institutions are doing, and the excuses they invent to ignore morality and human life, I will now outlying the basics of humanistic morality.

-----Life First.

-----Morality second.

-----Everything else a distant third.

All that we do must be subservient to moral principles, and only so long as those moral principles exist in order to serve mankind. Any institution must stick rigidly to ethical principles, and must sacrifice itself rather than break these moral limitations. In a sense an organisation must be selfless and even self-destructing in the face of the moral principles which it must ultimately serve, ahead of all other goals. But these ethical principles must always have life, it's preservation, and it's quality as is only concern, otherwise it is not deserve to call itself morality. Once you accept these principles you look back and realise you have left all religion far behind, that you have achieved a degree of ethical understanding that far surpasses the achievements of any previous moralists with the rare exceptions of the great pioneers in both the east and in ancient Greece.

This is what makes me so antagonistic to religion, ultimately I could not care less whether their God exists, or how many lies they wish to spin, it is my humanistic principles which cause me to oppose religion. I have no real choice in this, and I would fight against Christianity as hard as communism or fascism, as ultimately they are exactly the same in every way that counts. They are all self-serving, and have absolutist ideologies whose goals do not ever include the betterment of mankind. They may think they can do good, I'm sure many Communists, Nazis and Christians think that if only people would give their ideology a chance, if only they could control the whole world, everything would be right. If only the right kind of Christians or right kind of communist leaders ruled the world that then everyone would see the good it could do, and the critics would be silenced once and for all.

What they failed to realise is that, although they may perceive their ideology as beneficial to mankind, and a means too an end, too often it becomes the end in itself, in the eyes of its adherents, and the means to this end become inhumane atrocities. As many noble goals these institutions may have, they're always eclipsed by these institutions.

We are not angels or spirits, we are human, so only human focused philosophy should be used by humans.

Only organisations specifically designed to place ethics ahead of itself are capable of being truly morally enlightened, and very few such institutions exist, among these are humanitarian and human rights organisations, but none of these really dare to address the real causes of suffering. It is not famine, it is not war, it is the institutions that create such things, and although humanitarianism is the pinnacle of moral enlightenment, it can derive from distinctly unenlightened sources, superficial philanthropists, theists, politicians wishing to garner public support. But the main limitation with humanitarianism is that it addresses the end results of a long chain of disasters and immoralities. The causes of which are often religion, politics or economics, I addressed this in a previous article, these three origins of human suffering are all equally capable of causing inhumane results but only religion is ultimately unnecessary.

Humanism is not the same as humanitarianism, because it is designed to tackle the root causes of humanitarian catastrophes, and many humanists are humanitarians who became frustrated trying to prevent famine and other disasters, and being thwarted by either communists, fascist, all religious governments.

Religious people particularly, attack humanists thinking they are immoral, not realising that in fact it is the moral superiority of humanism that causes such people, as well as many atheists, to oppose religion. They cannot see it from the humanistic point of view, they cannot see their religion as one of the many obstacles to a moral culture. The thought that they may be the bad guys never dares to enter their heads, and I have known very few theists incapable of recognising that humanist have any ethics, let alone superior ones. They seem to think that people with bad morals leave religion because they cannot maintain the supposedly high ethical standards of such belief systems. They don't know that many humanists are people who developed morals with or without religion, and reached such levels that they could no longer remain part of any religious or inhumane group, and have found that one of the principle causes of immorality are the ones claiming to have a monopaly on morals.

This is why I find the moral pretensions of Christians and Muslims so aggravating. Most of the time the so-called moral crusades that they go on only create more human suffering, and in the name of stopping such irrelevant human activities as pornography or gay marriage, they only perpetrate greater immoral acts, and cultivate inhumane cultures and nations. Though it is not immediately obvious, as so many people buy their spin, the so-called moral majority within religious communities are often the perpetrators of greater immorality than any of their adversaries. That in the name of Jesus they impose unrealistic and archaic perceptions of what is good for mankind, as dictated by a deity, not by what actually improves human existence. Coupled with the indirect effects of indoctrination, that causes them to do such sinister things as attempt to explain away mass murder, and dismiss current atrocities as well as past ones, you have a real thorn in the side of any true moralists. The end result is setback after setback for anyone trying to push mankind forward in the name of common sense and justice. Their black and white attitude not only is an oversimplification of the complexities of human existence, but even if it were not, they are certainly not white, and many of their opponents are far closer to white than they are, yet they are always demonised as the black.

Humanistic philosophy is inherently rebellious, and automatically distrustful of authority. One of the main ideas is for a humanistic revolt to overthrow the kind of government that causes humanitarian disasters, thusly creating a bedrock that naturally builds a humanitarian culture by default. Thus negating the need for humanitarian activism. Essentially, humanism is looking to put an end to humanitarianism as well as religion by making it redundant. Religion has proven itself redundant by its mere existence, fascism and communism give us clear signs that only moderate democracy is in any way moral, and all authorities derived from lies ultimately fail, as it is futile to suppress the truth, there will always be truth seekers, freethinkers, and even people who come across the truth by accident. Thusly only a philosophy based on science, and reason is sufficient as a basis for any humane ideas or activities. I consider these realisations to be the kind of self-evident truths that the founding fathers liked to talk about, ultimately humanism stands for tolerance, democracy, science, and an inherent humane culture, and there is no room in this kind of world for religion or extremism of any kind.

During my college years I realised that nothing was more important than human life, I reached this epiphany long after I realised that all religion was false, and my conclusions were quite rational, and have been further vindicated by my researches into both philosophy and ethics. Science neither services the interests of religion or morality, but merely demonstrates the falsehood of religious claims, and the significance of human life, relative to the universe, not some Bronze Age Semitic war god.

I started out as an ecologist, and then worked my way up to animal rights activist, and then finally a humanitarian. But I felt that it still wasn't enough, as too often ethics and human existence were subverted by other forces that no humanitarian groups or organisations were capable of taking on. At first I thought of creating a humanitarian alliance, something that would in the name of human life encourage more direct action against governments and institutions that consistently demonstrated an inhumane ideology. Then I realised that humanism had already reached that level of moral urgency, and that's all humanists have reached precisely the same conclusion I had. It didn't hurt that many were as opposed to religion as I am, either, and although it may be possible to be religious and moral, I am not willing to take a chance, as the few exceptions to the rule do not negate the threat posed to millions of lives.


YES/NO

As to your question, it is a very good one, and many theists worry about what precisely I have in mind, if we ever get any power, and if humanism ultimately wins. Make no mistake this is a war, a battle of ideologies, mankind versus god, Prometheus versus Zeus, and we intend to win. So what would happen when the dust clears and we are in charge? Will let's take this step-by-step.

All the nations of the world have differing attitudes regarding religion, and the best way to approach this is by demonstrating the differences between Islamic nations, America, and Britain.

In the Muslim countries religion permeates every level of society and government. This clearly cannot remain in place, religion would be removed from government, and no leader would be allowed to create policy based on religious belief. No laws or ethical standards would in any way pay homage to the Koran or Shari`ah law, this would instantly results in the significant drop of human rights violations. The end to ill-treatment of women, attitudes to gays and atheists, and of course the general bigotry towards the West, self-righteous posturing of Muslims, and dreams of Islamic hegemony. Not to mention the fact that their efforts will be based on what actually applies to reality, not their subjective and ever-changing perceptions of an un-consultable deity, who serves as the justification for every foul deed that you can imagine, as of course, Allah's lack of existence makes it very difficult for him to object to whatever they do in his name.

One spokesman maintains that he disapproves of such extremist or inhumane activities, while other spokesman may consider Osama and his ilk, the Islamic ideal. There's no way to say who's right and who's wrong, especially as they're all wrong, and there's no way to prove either way. And you wonder why the Middle East's so fucked up. The Muslim world would have to be slowly weaned off their theistic fixation, as it is such a significant part of their lives, there would not be any outright ban, but a gradual phasing away of public prayer, and a new emphasis on personal relations with their deity, but with very public moral accountability.

You could still believe in your deity, but only an approved interpretation, that places humanity's needs ahead of any perceived desire of Allah, such a position is held by many humanist Jews, and it clearly works. All you would need to do then is encourage critical thinking and scientific scrutiny, and allow people to gradually come to terms with the their deity's nonexistence, as it is always best to let people make the journey to enlightenment themselves rather than force it on people. That was the mistake the Communists made, they should simply have educated the masses rather than spew political ideology and state-sanctioned scientific determinism, which they excepted merely because it fitted in with their designs, not because it was a scientific truth, and stuck with it even after it had been debunked.

I used to respect Islam, and in many ways it is better than xtianity, but I've seen too much of the hypocrisy and pure evil it can foster to be moderate. I saw all the way to the bottom, and it taught me to except the existence of irredeemable individual evil. But in case you think my personal experiences colour my judgement, I hardly ever speak out against Islam, and even though I've never been hurt by an xtian, I feel compelled for the sake of what I've learnt about it, to constantly oppose what I see as the greatest evil there is, this is objective reasoning, not personal in any way.

On to America. The problem with the separation of church and state is that a lot of very barmy and radical churches grow up as a result, with no one to keep an eye on them, they can become as radical as they like, and of course suffering is the result. If any church through exorcism causes the death of children, if any church encourages clinic bombings, if any church drives homosexuals to suicide, than those churches should be closed down, it is a simple as that. I am all into freedom of worship, however there are definite limitations to what preachers should be able to encourage others to believe. I would encourage responsibility and true ethics among religious communities, not just let them believe and say what they want, as clearly it is as justified to prevent neo-Nazi or KKK meetings, as it is to prevent the many radical of fundamental theistic denominations to congregate.

If it had been Christianity that was defeated in the Second World War, or in any way the receiving end of defeat at the hands of the nations we belong to, then the acknowledgement of the crimes of Christianity would be as well known as those of Nazism. There would be no need to defend the banning of certain churches. Everyone would be aware of why we were doing it, they will either have personal memories or have read it in history how evil it can get. But although many schools teach about the Nazi Holocaust very few teach about Christian versions, even though they went on for a great many more centuries and resulted in a great many more deaths.

To someone with any degree of education, the danger to the public, and to life is self-evident, and only the larger more established churches tend to be moderate. Because they have, to a certain extent learnt from the mistakes of their past, but then the new denominations even though they have made nothing but mistakes since their very inception, have still yet to learn anything, and it may take centuries before they do. This is not some Fascist thought police I am suggesting, but something has to be done when so much harm is brought about by so many different Christian denominations in America. The main problem is churches have tax-exempt status, and are encouraged a great deal by the American government, if I or other humanists took control of America, the first thing we would do is tax the crap out of them. We would simply make it harder for them to function, and create such a climate that many would-be evangelists would realize that it's not really worth the efforts to start a church of their own. There would be far less money in it for a start.

Religion is given far too much of a free hand in America, vastly out of proportion to how much good it can do, or how true its claims may be. We would merely re-address the balance in favor of reason, and convince people using more enlightened methods than most churches use, that it is in their best interests to follow moral humanism rather than immoral theism. They need to be educated, it is simple as that. We would encourage alternative social venues, and even freethought churches, as it is clear Americans don't think they can function without some sort of weekly group thing, But these would not in any way be like the churches today, they would encourage critical thinking and truth seeking, encourage true morals and speak out against mindless theological servitude.

I encourage people to read the Bible, as its abhorrent immorality is self-evident, whereas the theists try to ban the books of their opponents, as they do not want anybody to know the truth, they do not think to themselves "why not just let our people make up their own minds?", or try to rationally explain away the seeming truth of their opponents positions. This represents a radical difference in approach between theists and humanists. We are totally open and encourage free inquiry and an earnest study of everything the opponents say, the theists want to censor the humanists and atheists at every possible opportunity, you have to ask yourself, who's more likely to have something to hide? and who is more likely to know they have truth on their side, and have no fear of investigation by anybody.

A root and branch cultural change is what America needs, the major problem is that too many theists have too much political power. If humanists were running the show then this would no longer be a problem, or it would require simply a slight nudge in a better direction, and people would eventually slowly come to their senses themselves.

This is what happened in England. Our educational standards are higher, and our knowledge of history is far greater, plus our cynicism and distrust of authority, demonstrated in a lack of slavish approval of any of our leaders, unlike the bush followers which Americans have to tolerate, means that we no more trust our priests any more than our politicians. We value commonsense and our state-sponsored churches are dying as a result of government negligence and general public apathy. We simply evolved from religious fundamentalism in the 1800's to out right agnosticism through gradual progression, with no need for state and church separation, but simply changing public attitudes.

This grass-roots alteration is not necessarily due to humanistic moral enlightenment, or education of the truth concerning religion, but is still better than theistic affliction. This shows that you do not need to have a conscious clamp down on religious activity, the nation should simply be allowed to find atheism on its own. This is by far the most ideal tactic, however there are many nations for whom religion is the main reason they are held back, and the problems they have are blamed by the religious authorities on the lack of religion rather than because of it, which only greatly increases the problems. The only solution to such things is immediate restrictions on theological activity from, as life and ethics must come first, and freedom comes at a price, and should not simply be used as an excuse to infringe upon the freedoms of others, or upon moral standards, let alone life itself. A nation's laws should reflect the best moral standards of the time, and religious spokesman should not be able to speak out against gays with complete impunity, without being sanctioned for breaking laws designed to prevent prejudiced propaganda. When I hear the likes of Pat Robertson speak such vile slander I'm surprised that he is allowed to say these things in public. These people do not care about the laws that prevent their activities in any way, (witness their constant violations of church and state laws and the constitution) or the truth, they have Jesus egging them on, and should be exposed for the disreputable frauds and bigots that they are. There needs to be a secular moral majority, otherwise no nation will ever progress.

I would not directly prevent people from praying, but I would not allow them to proselytize, brainwash their children, or allow them to congregate under the control of some raving maniac. The limitations I would impose upon religion would be leveled at the institutions, not the individuals. I would employ indirect and unobtrusive methods, in order to get the truth out, expose religious lies, and make people understand that morals have nothing to do with religion. I would make it clear that our humanist nation does not welcome extremism of any kind, and religion will be kept on a very short leash. This would not so much have an effect on the individuals, but the community would definitely feel less inclined to make fools of themselves, and the church leaders would be kept under very close scrutiny, I'd also ban all cults, for reasons I should not have to go into. I would even encourage alternative religions, as long as there is an even balance between different theistic viewpoints. For example I'd encourage a series of Hindu celebrations, Buddhist days, encourage Jewish celebrations, anything but Islam or Christianity, or whatever religion happens to be dominant, because I find that comparing one religion to another, looking at them in relation to all the others, shows you that no one faith is better than any other, as all are ultimately mediocre and derivative.

I would be precisely as restrictive as I would need to be in order to guarantee the safety of humanity, and the correct level of moral behavior, I am a liberal, I am very tolerant, but there is a certain minimum moral level I expect from everyone. I would gladly tolerate all the world's religions if it was not for the fact that they are the harbingers of death and suffering. No guarantee that they may make would satisfy me, as they are all beyond redemption. I'd simply point this out to people, and explain why they can no longer afford to be theistic, and will appeal to reason, compassion, and ethics, if that doesn't get through to them I would merely put restrictions on their community functions, as a person's individual mind is their own. It is when religion permeates a community, passes down the ages, and ends up in the hands of leaders and lunatics that things really turn ugly, Religion needs to be newted. I'd gladly just leave it to wither and die, but only after I have made a few subtle adjustments, the kind it could never recover from. I would settle for crippled rather than destroyed. And I would never break any ethical rules or harm life in order to destroy religion, as that would be self-defeating. My morals cause me to hate religion, I don't hate religion and attempt to use morality to justify this, would never lose sight of what I'm doing this for, as human life is the only reason I bother to hang around this planet. For all religion's intellectually stimulating assets, ultimately I would always take life over the beliefs that life is afflicted with, humanity always comes first, if it did not we would have no justification for the ending of religion.


To Sum up.

I will severely restrict religion, not ban it, I will encourage true morality, and I challenge any theist to show me why I am wrong. I am not a raving strong atheist, I merely represent a strict ethical standard pushed to it’s logical conclusion. This is about morality and humanity, religion is irrelevant.




AUB - I have spoken.

Mad Gerbil

Bhor:

I cannot tell you how horrified I am at what you wrote.
However, what I appreciate is a humanist who says exactly what he believes and follows it to it's logical conclusion. Cheers to you for consistency.

It seems to me that your standard is human suffering/avoidance of death and pain in determining morality. Is that correct?

Questions:
1) Where does your system of morality come from? All animals seem to act merely on instinct -- they'll eat their own offspring and not flinch, they'll eat their own mates and belch.

2) Evolution is as much about death as it is life, how did you arrive at the idea that competition within the human species that results in death (and occurs among all other species) was immoral and to be avoided?

Cerise

Humans are social creatures. It is only through bonding with each other in groups, pairs, etc, that we have survived thus far. Death does not serve us as well as teamwork.

ME

Well put Cerise, you summed it up just right. However just to drive the point home, in my own distinct way, here’s a more detailed version of what you just said.


---------------------------------------You are now entering, the AUB Zone -----------------------------------------


MG, your questions are well chosen but very badly put, they have this theistic stench to them, but I will endeavour to remain civil. No promises though.

Let’s get started.

I dislike it when theists try to use evolution to manufacture conclusions that results in some mindless or immoral culture that is the natural conclusion of any secular society. You have precisely the same blinkered viewpoint of virtually every other ignorant theist we have had on this site, you repeat all the old clichés and deliberately choose to misunderstand and misrepresent all viewpoints outside that of your little cult. You ask the same questions and betray the sources of your "knowledge" that is the usual copy and pasted propaganda that I have rebuked other theists for continually relying upon, rather than their own intelligence or capacity to seek truth for themselves.

Just because evolution runs on cruder principles does not mean that we have to, no legitimate evolutionary scientist had ever said this, as nature is clearly unaware of our sentience, as how can something not sentient comprehend something that is? We are on our own and the responsibility is entirely hours, even if nature was as brutal as you think it is, such brutalities are out of necessity, any less so and nature would have doomed all other species to extinction, as it, is 99% of them are gone forever, not due to nature's cruelty but due to reality, the nature of matter and the environment. All factors which nature has to compensate for and one of the ways it has to do that is through an occasionally savage existence.

Competition is not immoral within nature, it is simply not as applicable to mankind, but nonetheless it still exists, and is the basis of such systems as capitalism, it is merely been shifted into an economic sphere. Death is very much the driving force in evolution, however it is also the driving force of religion, and is responsible for the evolution of your faith's theology and all others. Also you're religion exist today because it defeated all its opponents, the survival of the fittest principle applies to Christianity with far greater accuracy than any philosophy or secular system of ethics. Your faith was the most brutal, the most cruel, the most harsh and intolerant, in its early days it battled against all other xtian cults and churches, convicted of heresy all alternative views, and once part of the Roman Empire continued to ravage everything it could, destroying knowledge, destroying Western civilisation, and creating centuries of darkness and fear, only to rise up in an attempt to convert the whole world to this horrible killer of virtue. This is the rule of the jungle; you have the most aggressive proselytisers, the most tortured devices. You had the most rampaging Crusaders and inquisitors, and most enjoyed destroying all other civilisations and religions in your path. Within nature it is necessary and inevitable, with you religion it is an immoral abomination, and far more alien to humanism and other ethical philosophies, yet your ignorance causes you to brand your own crimes onto us, a very affective defence mechanism.

Harsh natural selection did create mankind, and we must acknowledge that this is our origin, however the past does not always dictate the future. The stage that we have reached, while the result of evolution, is such a significant alteration from all previous creatures that we require new principles in which to continue. If we were to ignore our sentient nature and carry on as if we were animals, we would still be as caring and co-operative, we would merely lack the complexity and subtlety that our higher brains have produced. I recommend you do more research before you debate with me again, as I dislike having to explain these very basic things to people, who desperately need a decent education. I have had to do this with every theist I have argued with on this site. Now I know as a theist you are largely incapable of objective thinking and rational thought, but you are at least capable of reading books and learning things, although you will be compelled to twist everything you know to your particular religious understanding. I simply dislike seeing the same mind in every theist, one type of approved thought, with limited knowledge that is always wrong, this can always be clearly demonstrated, as all ignorance needs in order to be exposed is knowledge, but I should not have to do this as there is nothing stopping you from learning about science and ethical philosophy for yourself.

To be criticised by people less moral and less knowledgeable about science, and accused of being unethical due to very crude misunderstanding of what little science these ignorant theists choose to acknowledge, is a charade I've seen played out on this site practically daily. You'd think the theists were sic of it by now. But these simpleminded creatures never get tired of demonising their opponents in their smug self-satisfied Jesus Loving way.

All your questions are derived entirely from the warped propaganda of theism, they would be decent questions if you did not include mindless characterisations of both science and nature, I advise you to keep to the facts, not the doctrines.

"they'll eat their own mates and belch." I mean seriously! This is strait out of a chick tract. The mentality is the same, please try to see it from the point of view of one who is aware of all the many subtleties and variations of the natural world, as well as what makes mankind so unique. To be confronted with such biased reductionism, by a person who as a theist presumably has some pretence at valuing human existence, irritates one. To assume that without God we have to be nothing but animals, and that you cannot have ethics without the Bible, and having to revert to the same tired ideas of the brutalities of nature dictating all secular ethics, should be beneath you.

Mankind does not lose any deeper significance with no god; it only makes mankind the focus of more intense attention, and gives it priority it deserves. You may disagree, but only because you are programmed to, you reasoning for such objections would be weak, and ethically speaking, irrelevant. I'll never sacrifice reality for fantasies, and just because I cannot legitimise morality by an exterior source does not mean my morals are not without worth, merely less significant to a deluded theist.

We have mankind, I like mankind, I dislike to see it hurt, so I like morality. What's wrong with this reasoning, should I only care for humanity if I have some deity fixation, why? Many other people have many different reasons why they concern themselves with ethical values, the Christian deity is one of them and clearly one of the worst. Both Christians and humanists claim to represent moral principles, why we do is irrelevant what is important is who's moral principles deserves to be implemented. My criteria is whichever ethical principles work to raise the quality and duration of human life, you may have a different criteria, and so this cannot really be a balanced comparison.

The differences are too great, your "ethics" derive from the need to serve a deity's ego for sake of our eternal souls, mine exist to reduce the bloodshed on this planet and raise the quality of human life. Mankind's nature defines its importance, and my concern for it's welfare, I do not need to explain my disposition, merely demonstrate why humanistic ethics are far superior to theistic ones. If any theists are incapable of recognising what is in the best interests of all humanity, then I will merely demonstrate it to all other human beings firsts. Then discredit theistic claims, then try the moral thing again.

The results of humanistic ethics is how it will be judged, how we came upon such ethics is not important, just because the origin of Christian "morality" is the reason they are considered legitimate by theists, it does not mean such origins are of any great consideration to us. (Even though are ethical origins are actually real) Without ethics life would be horribly short, it is as simple as that, if you people still want to argue about the value of secular morality, then you clearly are not looking out for humanity but an inhumane ideology.

I am against Christian ethics and for humanists ones, reason dictates they are better, history dictates they can hardly be worse. You're questioning of humanists morality is merely the knee-jerk reaction of people who have been programmed to find any non-Christian ethical values incomprehensible, no one without such theistic afflictions fell the need to questioned the inherent virtue of morality, but merely seek for the ethical system that best applies to any given situation, the answer is humanism.




AUB - The choice of a new generation.

(Later debates broke down, as he switched to a hard line anti-humanistic stance that was so immoral that I now refuse to talk to him.)

--- Back 2 Essays ---

--- HomePage ---