Just listened to Polly Toynbee on Radio 4 'Sunday' programme. She is the new president of the National Secular Society and HATES the idea that there is a God. She sees herself as being involved in a struggle of Reason against Superstition, and is a great believer in autonomy, the right to die, abortion rights, and deplores the influence of the churches in society, which she seems to think is very great. Shame it wasn't great enough to stop Blair's illegal war in Iraq when the Catholic, Anglican and free church leaders begged the prime minister not to do it.
The interviewer brought up the 20th century when gentlemen like Mao, Stalin and Hitler, men who like Polly Toynbee rejected the idea of religion and its restrictions, had done so much evil. Didn't organised religion with it's teachings about the respect due to the individual (and, he didn't but might have said, the fear of facing a righteous God at Judgement Day with bloodstained hands) offer some restraints against such 'scientific atheism' and other irreligious philosophy which was used to justified mass murder? She typically shrugged this off and said that religious people were just as bad when they got into power. She didn't offer an example so we could compare numbers, the assertion was enough evidence for her. Not all atheists were Stalins, she said. Agreed, but ONE was-and he and his atheist government machine murdered 60 million or more people in the name of the secular state and 'progress'. No Christian, compelled by love and restrained by the fear of God, has ever or could ever do any such thing.
Atheist state power and Christian state power 'just the same' Polly? Really? Hitler's war cost 50 million dead, plus the economic and environmental cost, Stalin and Mao are both thought to have rivalled or exceeded that number. Roger Bolton didn't even mention Paris- educated atheist Pol Pot who murdered a mere 2 million people in Cambodia in living memory. These men were all social Darwinists to the core, Hitler was a pagan rather than an atheist, and used a form of religious language when it suited him, but they all rejected the idea that a righteous Creator and Lawgiver God had the authority to order and restrain their behaviour-with terrible consequences. Stalin abandoned Christianity and embraced atheism after reading Darwin. Ideas have consequences.
It is a tragedy that influential journalists like Polly Toynbee are able to get away with calling themselves rational while making flip comments asserting that the 150 million plus deaths caused by secularist philosophies when they got into power in the 20th century were matched by similar atrocities caused by the church. Of course she did not offer any examples as there aren't any which bear examination.
Polly, nothing you or your mate Dawkins has said convinces me that there is not a seed of Stalin in your philosophy which would 'liquidate superstition' by all means necessary if you could.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:02:44 -0800 (PST), 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On 6 Nov, 14:53, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:36:12 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
> Just listened to Polly Toynbee on Radio 4 'Sunday' programme. She is > the new president of the National Secular Society and HATES the idea > that there is a God.
LOL! It's amazing the way religionists will distort just about anything to their own point of view.
Well, Sound Of Tremendous Stupid Lies, cough up this 'god' of yours and it'll vanish. Until then, we're here, and theres nothing you can do about that.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:36:12 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote: > Not all atheists were Stalins, >she said. Agreed, but ONE was-and he and his atheist government >machine murdered 60 million or more people in the name of the secular >state and 'progress'. No Christian, compelled by love and restrained >by the fear of God, has ever or could ever do any such thing.
Sound of Trumpet wrote: > http://questiondarwin.blogspot.com/2007/09/imagine-no-atheism.html > Imagine no atheism > http://www.questiondarwin.com > The interviewer brought up the 20th century when gentlemen like Mao, > Stalin and Hitler, men who like Polly Toynbee rejected the idea of > religion and its restrictions, had done so much evil. > Really? Hitler's war cost 50 million dead, plus the economic and > environmental cost, > These men were all social Darwinists to > the core, Hitler was a pagan rather than an atheist, and used a form > of religious language when it suited him, but they all rejected the > idea that a righteous Creator and Lawgiver God had the authority to > order and restrain their behaviour
Etc.
Hitler was in fact a lifelong Roman Catholic, and endorsed Creationism in Mein Kampf.
Anyone interested in the numbers slain by Christians can begin their research here:
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind. -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
> Just listened to Polly Toynbee on Radio 4 'Sunday' programme. She is > the new president of the National Secular Society and HATES the idea > that there is a God. She sees herself as being involved in a struggle > of Reason against Superstition, and is a great believer in autonomy, > the right to die, abortion rights, and deplores the influence of the > churches in society, which she seems to think is very great. Shame it > wasn't great enough to stop Blair's illegal war in Iraq when the > Catholic, Anglican and free church leaders begged the prime minister > not to do it.
> The interviewer brought up the 20th century when gentlemen like Mao, > Stalin and Hitler, men who like Polly Toynbee rejected the idea of > religion and its restrictions, had done so much evil. Didn't organised > religion with it's teachings about the respect due to the individual > (and, he didn't but might have said, the fear of facing a righteous > God at Judgement Day with bloodstained hands) offer some restraints > against such 'scientific atheism' and other irreligious philosophy > which was used to justified mass murder? She typically shrugged this > off and said that religious people were just as bad when they got into > power. She didn't offer an example so we could compare numbers, the > assertion was enough evidence for her. Not all atheists were Stalins, > she said. Agreed, but ONE was-and he and his atheist government > machine murdered 60 million or more people in the name of the secular > state and 'progress'. No Christian, compelled by love and restrained > by the fear of God, has ever or could ever do any such thing.
> Atheist state power and Christian state power 'just the same' Polly? > Really? Hitler's war cost 50 million dead, plus the economic and > environmental cost, Stalin and Mao are both thought to have rivalled > or exceeded that number. Roger Bolton didn't even mention Paris- > educated atheist Pol Pot who murdered a mere 2 million people in > Cambodia in living memory. These men were all social Darwinists to the > core, Hitler was a pagan rather than an atheist, and used a form of > religious language when it suited him, but they all rejected the idea > that a righteous Creator and Lawgiver God had the authority to order > and restrain their behaviour-with terrible consequences. Stalin > abandoned Christianity and embraced atheism after reading Darwin. > Ideas have consequences.
> It is a tragedy that influential journalists like Polly Toynbee are > able to get away with calling themselves rational while making flip > comments asserting that the 150 million plus deaths caused by > secularist philosophies when they got into power in the 20th century > were matched by similar atrocities caused by the church. Of course she > did not offer any examples as there aren't any which bear examination.
> Polly, nothing you or your mate Dawkins has said convinces me that > there is not a seed of Stalin in your philosophy which would > 'liquidate superstition' by all means necessary if you could.
> Just listened to Polly Toynbee on Radio 4 'Sunday' programme. She is > the new president of the National Secular Society and HATES the idea > that there is a God. She sees herself as being involved in a struggle > of Reason against Superstition, and is a great believer in autonomy, > the right to die, abortion rights, and deplores the influence of the > churches in society, which she seems to think is very great. Shame it > wasn't great enough to stop Blair's illegal war in Iraq when the > Catholic, Anglican and free church leaders begged the prime minister > not to do it.
> The interviewer brought up the 20th century when gentlemen like Mao, > Stalin and Hitler, men who like Polly Toynbee rejected the idea of > religion and its restrictions, had done so much evil. Didn't organised > religion with it's teachings about the respect due to the individual > (and, he didn't but might have said, the fear of facing a righteous > God at Judgement Day with bloodstained hands) offer some restraints > against such 'scientific atheism' and other irreligious philosophy > which was used to justified mass murder? She typically shrugged this > off and said that religious people were just as bad when they got into > power. She didn't offer an example so we could compare numbers, the > assertion was enough evidence for her. Not all atheists were Stalins, > she said. Agreed, but ONE was-and he and his atheist government > machine murdered 60 million or more people in the name of the secular > state and 'progress'. No Christian, compelled by love and restrained > by the fear of God, has ever or could ever do any such thing.
> Atheist state power and Christian state power 'just the same' Polly? > Really? Hitler's war cost 50 million dead, plus the economic and > environmental cost, Stalin and Mao are both thought to have rivalled > or exceeded that number. Roger Bolton didn't even mention Paris- > educated atheist Pol Pot who murdered a mere 2 million people in > Cambodia in living memory. These men were all social Darwinists to the > core, Hitler was a pagan rather than an atheist, and used a form of > religious language when it suited him, but they all rejected the idea > that a righteous Creator and Lawgiver God had the authority to order > and restrain their behaviour-with terrible consequences. Stalin > abandoned Christianity and embraced atheism after reading Darwin. > Ideas have consequences.
> It is a tragedy that influential journalists like Polly Toynbee are > able to get away with calling themselves rational while making flip > comments asserting that the 150 million plus deaths caused by > secularist philosophies when they got into power in the 20th century > were matched by similar atrocities caused by the church. Of course she > did not offer any examples as there aren't any which bear examination.
> Polly, nothing you or your mate Dawkins has said convinces me that > there is not a seed of Stalin in your philosophy which would > 'liquidate superstition' by all means necessary if you could.
Fuck imagining, produce a god you fucking religi-idiotic dunce and make 'No atheism' a reality.
I know you are not capable of even forming this idea, let alone considering it, but she does have freedome of belief. As much as you find if offensive that there is anyone in the world who does not subscribe to your microcephalic distortion of religion, there are such people, and they have a right to believe and say ANYTHING THEY WANT!
At least she doesn't leave drive-by piles of steaming feces on unrelated newsgroups.
> Just listened to Polly Toynbee on Radio 4 'Sunday' programme. She is > the new president of the National Secular Society and HATES the idea > that there is a God. She sees herself as being involved in a struggle > of Reason against Superstition, and is a great believer in autonomy, > the right to die, abortion rights, and deplores the influence of the > churches in society, which she seems to think is very great. Shame it > wasn't great enough to stop Blair's illegal war in Iraq when the > Catholic, Anglican and free church leaders begged the prime minister > not to do it.
> The interviewer brought up the 20th century when gentlemen like Mao, > Stalin and Hitler, men who like Polly Toynbee rejected the idea of > religion and its restrictions, had done so much evil. Didn't organised > religion with it's teachings about the respect due to the individual > (and, he didn't but might have said, the fear of facing a righteous > God at Judgement Day with bloodstained hands) offer some restraints > against such 'scientific atheism' and other irreligious philosophy > which was used to justified mass murder? She typically shrugged this > off and said that religious people were just as bad when they got into > power. She didn't offer an example so we could compare numbers, the > assertion was enough evidence for her. Not all atheists were Stalins, > she said. Agreed, but ONE was-and he and his atheist government > machine murdered 60 million or more people in the name of the secular > state and 'progress'. No Christian, compelled by love and restrained > by the fear of God, has ever or could ever do any such thing.
> Atheist state power and Christian state power 'just the same' Polly? > Really? Hitler's war cost 50 million dead, plus the economic and > environmental cost, Stalin and Mao are both thought to have rivalled > or exceeded that number. Roger Bolton didn't even mention Paris- > educated atheist Pol Pot who murdered a mere 2 million people in > Cambodia in living memory. These men were all social Darwinists to the > core, Hitler was a pagan rather than an atheist, and used a form of > religious language when it suited him, but they all rejected the idea > that a righteous Creator and Lawgiver God had the authority to order > and restrain their behaviour-with terrible consequences. Stalin > abandoned Christianity and embraced atheism after reading Darwin. > Ideas have consequences.
> It is a tragedy that influential journalists like Polly Toynbee are > able to get away with calling themselves rational while making flip > comments asserting that the 150 million plus deaths caused by > secularist philosophies when they got into power in the 20th century > were matched by similar atrocities caused by the church. Of course she > did not offer any examples as there aren't any which bear examination.
> Polly, nothing you or your mate Dawkins has said convinces me that > there is not a seed of Stalin in your philosophy which would > 'liquidate superstition' by all means necessary if you could.
Blair is a Christian (reportedly very devout and recently converted to Roman Catholicism) and yet he involved the UK in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is not the only Christian to engage in warfare.
>The interviewer brought up the 20th century when gentlemen like Mao, >Stalin and Hitler, men who like Polly Toynbee rejected the idea of >religion and its restrictions, had done so much evil.
Hitler did not reject the idea of religion although of course he expected it, like everything else, to be subordinate to the leader.
Didn't organised
>religion with it's teachings about the respect due to the individual >(and, he didn't but might have said, the fear of facing a righteous >God at Judgement Day with bloodstained hands) offer some restraints >against such 'scientific atheism' and other irreligious philosophy >which was used to justified mass murder?
Based on the 30 million death toll of the religiously motivated Taiping Rebellion...no.
Franco wrote: > On Nov 6, 6:36 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> > wrote: >> http://questiondarwin.blogspot.com/2007/09/imagine-no-atheism.html >> Imagine no atheism >> http://www.questiondarwin.com > Blair is a Christian (reportedly very devout and recently converted > to Roman Catholicism) and yet he involved the UK in wars in > Afghanistan and Iraq. He is not the only Christian to engage in > warfare.
During the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, President George W. Bush and members of his administration gave a variety of justifications for military action, which can best be summed up as “Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons and even nuclear weapons that he plans to give to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda who will then smuggle them into the United States and kill tens of thousands of people.” Opponents of the invasion suspected Bush was actually motivated by a desire to control Iraq’s large oil reserves. However, according to reports out of Switzerland and France, President Bush appears to have been inspired by another source: Biblical prophecy.
Apparently, while trying to drum up international support for the invasion of Iraq, Bush placed a phone call to the president of France, Jacques Chirac, and presented a series of arguments to convince the French president to join Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing.” In the course of the conversation, according to an English-language translation, Bush told Chirac, “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.
Chirac, a Catholic, didn’t understand what Bush, an Evangelical Christian, was talking about, and asked his staff to find out who Gog and Magog were and what they meant to the U.S. president. Chirac’s staff contacted the Biblical Service of the French Federation of Protestants, who in turn called Thomas Römer, a Professor of Theology at the University of Lausanne and a specialist in the Old Testament. Römer was asked to prepare a one-page report on the subject of Gog and Magog to be shown to the president of France.
Römer maintained silence about the incident until Chirac left office in May 2007, after which the professor revealed the story in an interview with the University of Lausanne’s school magazine, Allez savoir! [http://www2.unil.ch/unicom/allez_savoir/as39/index.html ]. Earlier this year, Chirac confirmed the story in a book, Si vous le répétez, je démentirai... : Chirac, Sarkozy, Villepin [If You Repeat It, I’ll Deny It] by Jean-Claude Maurice,
So, for those to whom the allusion is not obvious, what did Bush mean when he referred to Gog and Magog? Gog and Magog appear in the prophetic Book of Ezekiel 38-39, and the section is open to various interpretations. Gog is the human personification of evil who will lead a multinational invasion of Israel from the north and be defeated, with great violence, by God, who will restore Israel’s security. Magog refers to the land from which Gog hails. To George Bush, Gog and Magog probably meant the ultimate future battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil, a battle that had been predicted more than 2,500 years earlier, but whose time had finally come.
Chirac, who had sent French troops to support Bush’s 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, was not convinced this time, and refused to join Bush’s Coalition of the Willing.
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind. -- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
> Just listened to Polly Toynbee on Radio 4 'Sunday' programme. She is > the new president of the National Secular Society and HATES the idea > that there is a God.
(T Guy):
Do you think that she hates the idea of four-sided triangles?
(Strumpet):
She sees herself as being involved in a struggle
> of Reason against Superstition, and is a great believer in autonomy
(T Guy):
You make that sound like a bad thing. This may reveal your true colours.
(Strumpet): ,
> the right to die, abortion rights, and deplores the influence of the > churches in society, which she seems to think is very great. Shame it > wasn't great enough to stop Blair's illegal war in Iraq when the > Catholic, Anglican and free church leaders begged the prime minister > not to do it.
(T Guy):
The reasoned objections of some atheists failed as much as the begging of the theists; they were equally ignored by the theist Blair.
(Strumpet):
> The interviewer brought up the 20th century when gentlemen like Mao, > Stalin and Hitler, men who like Polly Toynbee rejected the idea of > religion
(T Guy):
Nope. I don't know about Hitler - others elsethread address his religious beliefs - but Stalin and Mao were both self-alleged Marxists.
(Strumpet): ...No Christian, compelled by love and restrained
> by the fear of God, has ever or could ever do any such thing.
(T Guy):
Atheists are compelled by love; there is no need to threaten them and make them afraid of some more poweerful being to make them act well.
(Strumpet):
> Atheist state power and Christian state power 'just the same' Polly? > Really? Hitler's war cost 50 million dead, plus the economic and > environmental cost,... Hitler was a pagan rather than an atheist,
(T Guy):
Make up your... oh, yeah, okay, as you were.
(Strumpet):
> Polly, nothing you or your mate Dawkins has said convinces me
(T Guy):
Would it be more convincing if you didn't start off from the position that there is a powerful being who will torture you if Polly convinces you?
(Strumpet):
that
> there is not a seed of Stalin in your philosophy which would > 'liquidate superstition' by all means necessary if you could.
You are only giving two alternatives. God or Atheism. And Christianity does not = God. Christianity is the belief that God had a son who appeared on Earth. This is not really a belief in God. A belief in God is to do with a Creator, an explanation as to how Earth got there, an all powerful being who arranges destiny and this kind of thing. This belief is nothing to do with Christianity.
And other alternatives are those who belief in Destiny, the Powers that Be, "something more", but this does not necessarily mean or equate with God or any form of religion.
Some like Einstein are what are known as Agnostic. In other words they cannot really make a firm decision, but constantly reflect on the idea and vary their decision according to thoughts and circumstances and various evidence or proof.
All you are really trying to say is that there are good people and bad people. This Polly Tonybee sounds like a bad person. But bad people exist in atheism, agnosticism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc bad people are bad people, religion cannot and does not make bad people "good" the same as atheism or agnosticism cannot and does not make good people "bad".
> Just listened to Polly Toynbee on Radio 4 'Sunday' > programme. She is > the new president of the National Secular Society and > HATES the idea > that there is a God. She sees herself as being involved in > a struggle > of Reason against Superstition, and is a great believer in > autonomy, > the right to die, abortion rights, and deplores the > influence of the > churches in society, which she seems to think is very > great. Shame it > wasn't great enough to stop Blair's illegal war in Iraq > when the > Catholic, Anglican and free church leaders begged the > prime minister > not to do it.
> The interviewer brought up the 20th century when gentlemen > like Mao, > Stalin and Hitler, men who like Polly Toynbee rejected the > idea of > religion and its restrictions, had done so much evil. > Didn't organised > religion with it's teachings about the respect due to the > individual > (and, he didn't but might have said, the fear of facing a > righteous > God at Judgement Day with bloodstained hands) offer some > restraints > against such 'scientific atheism' and other irreligious > philosophy > which was used to justified mass murder? She typically > shrugged this > off and said that religious people were just as bad when > they got into > power. She didn't offer an example so we could compare > numbers, the > assertion was enough evidence for her. Not all atheists > were Stalins, > she said. Agreed, but ONE was-and he and his atheist > government > machine murdered 60 million or more people in the name of > the secular > state and 'progress'. No Christian, compelled by love and > restrained > by the fear of God, has ever or could ever do any such > thing.
> Atheist state power and Christian state power 'just the > same' Polly? > Really? Hitler's war cost 50 million dead, plus the > economic and > environmental cost, Stalin and Mao are both thought to > have rivalled > or exceeded that number. Roger Bolton didn't even mention > Paris- > educated atheist Pol Pot who murdered a mere 2 million > people in > Cambodia in living memory. These men were all social > Darwinists to the > core, Hitler was a pagan rather than an atheist, and used > a form of > religious language when it suited him, but they all > rejected the idea > that a righteous Creator and Lawgiver God had the > authority to order > and restrain their behaviour-with terrible consequences. > Stalin > abandoned Christianity and embraced atheism after reading > Darwin. > Ideas have consequences.
> It is a tragedy that influential journalists like Polly > Toynbee are > able to get away with calling themselves rational while > making flip > comments asserting that the 150 million plus deaths caused > by > secularist philosophies when they got into power in the > 20th century > were matched by similar atrocities caused by the church. > Of course she > did not offer any examples as there aren't any which bear > examination.
> Polly, nothing you or your mate Dawkins has said convinces > me that > there is not a seed of Stalin in your philosophy which > would > 'liquidate superstition' by all means necessary if you > could.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:28:08 -0800 (PST), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>LOL! It's amazing the way religionists will distort just about >anything to their own point of view.
He's only interested in the alternatives that threaten his belief. He's not trying to convert Hindus, for instance.
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
It's interesting that he chose to cross post this to rec.arts.sf.written. F&SF has often imagined what would happen if gods were real, and it wasn't a matter of "belief".
-- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
> It's interesting that he chose to cross post this to > rec.arts.sf.written. F&SF has often imagined what would happen if > gods were real, and it wasn't a matter of "belief".
It's become a common trope that gods cease to exist if no one believes in them.
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in news:7ljn0nF3e2406U1 @mid.individual.net:
> So, for those to whom the allusion is not obvious, what did Bush mean > when he referred to Gog and Magog? Gog and Magog appear in the prophetic > Book of Ezekiel 38-39, and the section is open to various > interpretations. Gog is the human personification of evil who will lead > a multinational invasion of Israel from the north and be defeated, with > great violence, by God, who will restore Israel's security. Magog refers > to the land from which Gog hails. To George Bush, Gog and Magog probably > meant the ultimate future battle between the forces of good and the > forces of evil, a battle that had been predicted more than 2,500 years > earlier, but whose time had finally come.
This is within the realm of reality. Bush is, after all, a member of several really crazy cults....Freemason 32nd degree, Skull & Bones at Yale, Bohemian Grove where the cult burns an Owl-like figure dressed in robes, etc.
All this is steeped in religion, VERY DEEP in religion....Devil-worship!
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:36:12 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet > <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>>The interviewer brought up the 20th century when gentlemen like Mao, >>Stalin and Hitler, men who like Polly Toynbee rejected the idea of >>religion and its restrictions, had done so much evil.
> Hitler did not reject the idea of religion although of course he > expected it, like everything else, to be subordinate to the leader.
> Didn't organised >>religion with it's teachings about the respect due to the individual >>(and, he didn't but might have said, the fear of facing a righteous >>God at Judgement Day with bloodstained hands) offer some restraints >>against such 'scientific atheism' and other irreligious philosophy >>which was used to justified mass murder?
> Based on the 30 million death toll of the religiously motivated > Taiping Rebellion...no.
Ah, how convenient it all is to forget the founders of the Soviet Union were JEWS!
> Just listened to Polly Toynbee on Radio 4 'Sunday' programme. She is > the new president of the National Secular Society and HATES the idea > that there is a God. She sees herself as being involved in a struggle > of Reason against Superstition, and is a great believer in autonomy, > the right to die, abortion rights, and deplores the influence of the > churches in society, which she seems to think is very great. Shame it > wasn't great enough to stop Blair's illegal war in Iraq when the > Catholic, Anglican and free church leaders begged the prime minister > not to do it.
> The interviewer brought up the 20th century when gentlemen like Mao, > Stalin and Hitler, men who like Polly Toynbee rejected the idea of > religion and its restrictions, had done so much evil. Didn't organised > religion with it's teachings about the respect due to the individual > (and, he didn't but might have said, the fear of facing a righteous > God at Judgement Day with bloodstained hands) offer some restraints > against such 'scientific atheism' and other irreligious philosophy > which was used to justified mass murder? She typically shrugged this > off and said that religious people were just as bad when they got into > power. She didn't offer an example so we could compare numbers, the > assertion was enough evidence for her. Not all atheists were Stalins, > she said. Agreed, but ONE was-and he and his atheist government > machine murdered 60 million or more people in the name of the secular > state and 'progress'. No Christian, compelled by love and restrained > by the fear of God, has ever or could ever do any such thing.
> Atheist state power and Christian state power 'just the same' Polly? > Really? Hitler's war cost 50 million dead, plus the economic and > environmental cost, Stalin and Mao are both thought to have rivalled > or exceeded that number. Roger Bolton didn't even mention Paris- > educated atheist Pol Pot who murdered a mere 2 million people in > Cambodia in living memory. These men were all social Darwinists to the > core, Hitler was a pagan rather than an atheist, and used a form of > religious language when it suited him, but they all rejected the idea > that a righteous Creator and Lawgiver God had the authority to order > and restrain their behaviour-with terrible consequences. Stalin > abandoned Christianity and embraced atheism after reading Darwin. > Ideas have consequences.
> It is a tragedy that influential journalists like Polly Toynbee are > able to get away with calling themselves rational while making flip > comments asserting that the 150 million plus deaths caused by > secularist philosophies when they got into power in the 20th century > were matched by similar atrocities caused by the church. Of course she > did not offer any examples as there aren't any which bear examination.
> Polly, nothing you or your mate Dawkins has said convinces me that > there is not a seed of Stalin in your philosophy which would > 'liquidate superstition' by all means necessary if you could.
Hey you raise some very valid points but despite not being an atheism I should point out the crusades and the knights templar on the part about religions not being responsible for large numbers of dead.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:36:12 -0800, Sound of Trumpet wrote: > Just listened to Polly Toynbee
Touting or attacking religion by using historical celebrities to validate one position or another is a dead end in that it immediately become a battle between cheery pickers.
|
