Dad beheads son for Jesus.

[Thor]

I wanted to finish my point on the Atheism leads to Communism, Hitler, Pol Pot, North Korea, etc.. Or the argument that those are Atheistic societies which are examples of why Atheism leads to evil.

This argument is much like what we hear constantly from creationists who even though we thoroughly refute them on this, they site the human eye as being a case for "look how perfect it is, its obvious its created, thus evolution is false."

Its refuted over and over again, yet its still the commonly used strategy by creationists.

Now as to Stalin/Lenin, Pol pot, Mao, and North Korea... I won't even add Hitler even though its commonly used because historians will point out his private correspondence shows and if not prove he's religious, at least prove he's not an atheist.

The argument from the religious apologist's is based on the belief that religion is the source of morality. That logic leads them to point out communism, which is the great evil to a Christian USA is an Atheist nation (its not, over 85% of Russians are Catholics and always have been). It was a neat combining of hatred for the US, hate of Atheists and hate of Communists.

The argument that Stalin committed crime because he was not fearful of an afterlife where God would judge him allowed him the intellectual capacity to commit such unspeakable evils. This is a commonly held belief by most who would bring out this tired counter argument to Atheism.

Lets play this idea for a moment, Stalin/Lenin ran dictatorial regimes where free speech, free thought were absolutely oppressed. Those regimes were run much like their previous Czar's, absolute and theocratic in their execution of power. Atheists are famous for some of these few things, free thought, free speech, challenging beliefs of not just religion but political ideas, skepticism, rationality, etc.. Those are not on display in the so called examples of Atheist nations, unless you skip forward to modern times to show shining examples of non religious nations like Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, et al.

You cannot take dictatorial regimes and try to argue them as examples of Atheism, because Atheism is about free speech, democracy and it has to happen by the will of the people not be forced upon them. Ideas cannot be forced, they can only evolve, which was not the case in all the cited examples of why Atheism is bad.

But the underlying idea is that religious apologetics think atheists have a lack of morality since they don't get it from god and the bible. IF this was the case, how can you explain that in the USA atheists account for anywhere between 12-18% of the population yet in prisons they represent around 1% of the prison population.

How do you explain that a free society like Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Holland have atheist majorities, as high as 80-90% and have by all acceptable ranking standards the highest:

1. Life expectancy
2. Education
3. Social standards (healthcare, free education, 4-5 weeks mandatory vacations)
4. Highest per capita charity contributions in the world.

All which you would expect the opposite of the evil non believers.

In each case of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, North Korea, et al.... We can explain easily that they resemble religious regimes and that rationalism, humanism, and secularism had nothing to do with the terrible attrocities they caused.

To those that suggest that the last century was the most violent of all time, is also wrong. In tribal earth, 4-20,000 years the average would see 30% to 40% of males murdered in their lifetime due to war, conflict.

The only reason the last century was so bad was because of our ability to do harm is made much easier by advanced techonolgy.

If the crusades happened in the last century, you can bet it would make WW1 and WW2 seem like peace retreats. And why you can't deny the obvious link to religious zealotry (absolutism/dogma) that is the cause and resulting sadness of most of our conflicts and suffering in the world.

So next time people equate Hitler/Stalin to Atheism, remember that Atheism is not a religion, its not even a group organized with a rigid set of ideals/beliefs. Its a NON belief, in which those who state their non belief you have socialists, democrats, liberals, conservatives, market capitalists, vegans, meat eaters, jerks, nice people, stupid people, smart people, etc..

Its tiresome to point out to Christians for example that they are Atheists too, they don't believe in Zeus, they don't follow Odin, they are Atheists just like me, just I took it one more god further than them.

To suggest Atheism is anything like Religion simply stated means you don't understand what Religion is and Atheism is.

Baldness is not a haircut, A TV turned off is not a TV station.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

I read somewhere years ago an article talking about the uniqueness of the human race and it was talking about how humans are set a part from wildlife in certain respects and there was a point made about murder. I can't remember what the article was but I wasn't firing off ignorant rants merely broadening the conversation.

Interesting, but that doesn't answer my question about what the point of your post was. You posted because that animals do or do not kill their own kind with intent was relevant to the thread, I'm trying to understand why you thought it was relevant.

Originally Posted by Finny61

Your looking for battles photon but you need to chill.

You post in a thread, I reply.. this is not a battle, it's called engaging in discussion. I'm making statements and asking questions, you're making statements and not answering questions, hence the desire for clarification.

Asking someone to be clear and to support their posts and ideas isn't hostility. If you don't want your posts to be replied to, why post at all?

On the other hand, making a post then ignoring the responses, and clipping off and ignoring part of my question entirely is pretty disrespectful on your part...

So you had a point when you posted about animals murdering, my question is now that the basis of that view has changed, how has that changed your view point (if at all)?

Originally Posted by Finny61

My previous post was that religion can not be the source, it's only a scapegoat excuse for this guy to murder his son.

Please show me where I've disagreed with that.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Locke

Oh my GOD!!

This is the most horrendously outrageous thing I have ever seen!

I can't believe how you sick freaks can make jokes about such an overwhelmingly sad situation! Have you no consciences? How can you pathetic people look at yourselves in the mirror in the morning? You soulless harpies!

A child has lost his life because his father is a religious wackjob and all you people can do is come up with punchlines? Have you no humanity left in your callous souls? No decency?

Think of this child's mother....his sister, his brother, his third cousin twice removed!! Actually, speaking of which, where the hell was his mother?

This is just further proof that religion is destroying the moral fabric of our society. Kill the God-mongers!

This man should be slowly tortured using every known and available means in order to set an example to other would-be child beheaders that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated in our society!

Knowing our justice system they'll give him a slap on the wrists, $500 bail and ask him nicely not to behead his other son....sleep with one eye open and a steel collar around your neck kid.

This post started as something I could agree with. Making jokes over something just happened...to a kid no less deserved to be called out.

But then you turned it into some anti-religion pitch?

At least one could laugh at the indecent posts even if it means going to hell. Your cashing in on a traumatic event to further your opinion that religion is destroying everything is equally bad.

No religion or lack thereof was going to save this kid from an obviously sick person.

Its a tragedy.

Leave it there.

[photon]

Keep in mind who posted that rant TA, the "third cousin twice removed" part should give it a sufficient shade of green.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by photon

Keep in mind who posted that rant TA, the "third cousin twice removed" part should give it a sufficient shade of green.

You think? I still think it was kind of tasteless. I know its Locke, and he was just trying to be funny.

This wasn't.

Not trying to make a big deal of it. We challenge each others posts here all day. Locke is one of the personalities that makes CP.

Also, I am not going to claim to know a third cousin twice removed, but I'm sure they're very nice people.

[photon]

It's Locke, your standards of taste need to be adjusted slightly

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by photon

It's Locke, your standards of taste need to be adjusted slightly

Its not my fault he's funny. Its just the way I am. He's an effing riot...if CP was a newspaper, then Locke would be the entire comics page but entirely not family-friendly.

But in this case, I was shocked to see jokes off the top AND then Locke cashing in on it as a chance to knock Religion.

Nobody seems to actually want to talk about the issue. I don't have kids, but all the Dads out there making jokes in this thread must be thinking some wack s**t right now.

[photon]

I can't even think directly about the initial post of the thread seriously, my brain just rebels.

If you needed any more proof about Locke posting to mock rather than be serious:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=4093
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=4098
And the posts around it..

(Sorry to out you Locke, you can't expect to be all secret when the threads are like right next to each other)

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by photon

I can't even think directly about the initial post of the thread seriously, my brain just rebels.

If you needed any more proof about Locke posting to mock rather than be serious:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=4093
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=4098
And the posts around it..

(Sorry to out you Locke, you can't expect to be all secret when the threads are like right next to each other)

Yeah...but this is to do with kids losing their life to someone they intrinsically and most certainly biologically trust. It makes hit so much harder.

[photon]

I know what you mean, I can't "think" directly at it, it's just too much.. which actually makes it easier for me to think about it in the abstract and joke about it, because I'm simply incapable of holding the reality of it in my mind.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by photon

I know what you mean, I can't "think" directly at it, it's just too much.. which actually makes it easier for me to think about it in the abstract and joke about it, because I'm simply incapable of holding the reality of it in my mind.

Hell man, I changed, fed, burped and danced around with my first infant recently, a baby niece who I babysit a couple times per week. She loves Jazz and Funk.

Anyway, knowing the life she is going to have and a shot at something real, especially considering her support network makes this thread excessively troubling.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

You think? I still think it was kind of tasteless. I know its Locke, and he was just trying to be funny.

His whole post, including the religious rant, was done very tongue-in-cheek. I don't understand how so many people missed that.

[C_Rush]

Originally Posted by rubecube

His whole post, including the religious rant, was done very tongue-in-cheek. I don't understand how so many people missed that.

I didn't miss it. I just didn't find it funny or appropriate for such material. That could be because I am a father with a son I adore and this story really hit me in the gut, but I found the attempted jokes here very tasteless. Normally I find Locke very funny, this just wasn't the place for it IMO.

[simonsays]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

This post started as something I could agree with. Making jokes over something just happened...to a kid no less deserved to be called out.

But then you turned it into some anti-religion pitch?

At least one could laugh at the indecent posts even if it means going to hell. Your cashing in on a traumatic event to further your opinion that religion is destroying everything is equally bad.

No religion or lack thereof was going to save this kid from an obviously sick person.

Here's how it works on CP:
Stage 1) Story gets posted, anonymous posters reply. Eventually one poster destroys the moral high ground with hilarious pictures.

Stage 2) Locke arrives and realizes that even his humor cannot attain similar heights, so he aims even higher. He aims to purely offend Christians.

Stage 3) Christians are offended.

Stage 4) The 'adults' on the sight arrive and try to debate exactly what it is that the Christians have been offended by.

Stage 5) Flames Gimp arrives and manages to piss both sides off by sucking balls.

Stage 6) Atheists and Christians remain locked in mortal combat until this thread makes its way off the main page.

Now that we understand how these threads work I just have one simple question: Why doesn't the Christian Internet come with a sarcasm detector? I mean you guys probably pay about the same, so why aren't you getting all the features?

[Biff]

^
That was kind of funny. I salute the effort to distil order out of whatever it is we all collectively do to threads.

[jammies]

How do we know God didn't actually tell this guy to kill his kid? I think the burden of proof should be on the atheists to show that God *didn't* want this boy beheaded - after all, God has asked for fathers to kill their sons before.

What's really needed here is some respect for God. It isn't up to us to say why he does the things he does, and surely some greater purpose has been served by this sacrifice. So-called "schizophrenia" is nothing but scientism trying to explain the inexplicable - God chose this holy man to make a terrible, terrible choice, and was rewarded by obedience. How can we now condemn him - is "Judge not lest ye be judged" not a clear indicator of God's will in these matters?

*****
This message brought to you by the "no wait that's medieval and we're much more enlightened now" brigade of religious doublethinkers.

[Biff]

nm

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by jammies

How do we know God didn't actually tell this guy to kill his kid? I think the burden of proof should be on the atheists to show that God *didn't* want this boy beheaded - after all, God has asked for fathers to kill their sons before.

What's really needed here is some respect for God. It isn't up to us to say why he does the things he does, and surely some greater purpose has been served by this sacrifice. So-called "schizophrenia" is nothing but scientism trying to explain the inexplicable - God chose this holy man to make a terrible, terrible choice, and was rewarded by obedience. How can we now condemn him - is "Judge not lest ye be judged" not a clear indicator of God's will in these matters?

*****
This message brought to you by the "no wait that's medieval and we're much more enlightened now" brigade of religious doublethinkers.

In other news, God has put out a $1,000,000 bounty on the CP poster named Jammies. He assures he will pay by lowering a pot of gold after he deed is done.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by photon

I can't even think directly about the initial post of the thread seriously, my brain just rebels.

If you needed any more proof about Locke posting to mock rather than be serious:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=4093
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=4098
And the posts around it..

(Sorry to out you Locke, you can't expect to be all secret when the threads are like right next to each other)

Ha...no need for secrecy, if I wanted it to be some sort of mystery I'd have probably been a little more discreet, such as not posting links to my own posts with commentary.

The one thing I take issue with, was that the purpose was not to 'mock.' I wasn't making fun of anyone in particular and I wasnt out to offend, although I fully admit that many would be offended, thems the breaks, sometimes life throws you curveballs.

It was supposed to be a form of exaggeration for effect, something so far away from what I normally post that one might stop and ask themselves:

Which is better? Moral and righteous indignation or callous humour?

Its a well known fact which I prefer, but the real answer is neither.

Originally Posted by simonsays

Stage 2) Locke arrives and realizes that even his humor cannot attain similar heights, so he aims even higher. He aims to purely offend Christians.

Stage 3) Christians are offended.

I'm not here to offend Christians. Really. Part of that rant was me showing how I'm getting tired with all of the anti-religious zealotry around here and that in some form, I'm actually defending Christians.

I see a lot of people condemning religion as some sort of cop out for the weak and then at the same time turning to point to that very same religion as the source of all of society's problems, in turn creating....you guessed it...a cop out of their very own all the while remaining blissfully ignorant.

This line in particular:

This is just further proof that religion is destroying the moral fabric of our society. Kill the God-mongers!

Was written in the hope that some people might come to realize that religion is not the issue at hand, its just the convenient scapegoat when Captain Maniac with the machete happens to be crying out to God as opposed to anything else.

Too many are too quick to blame religion for everything.

Originally Posted by rubecube

His whole post, including the religious rant, was done very tongue-in-cheek. I don't understand how so many people missed that.

It was supposed to make some people think a little. It failed. Some people got it right away, maybe its because you just know me better.

[CaramonLS]

God, I love Locke.