Atheist Wrath

Since the invention of religion, those unfortunate enough not to be regaled by the "holy spirit" have been subjected to all sorts of depraved and sanguinary means of torture and execution. Whether it be murder by the masses or a systematic means of depriving life, the end result for those that did not profess to believe in the same deity as an arbitrary group of Nomadic settlers was the same. For thousands of years, the atheist has had to hide behind a cowl and mask, relinquishing his true identity. However, by nature of this persecution, the atheist is justified in revenge, which argument I will develop henceforth.

Now, the atheist is neither left nor right, and does not profess any sort of objective moral code to be followed by the masses. The sole defining characteristic of atheism is the adherence to a belief, or rather a lack of belief, shared by many like-minded individuals, and with adherence to the belief, there is no plausible reason to not label the atheist as part of a group of atheists. A group is, inevitably, different from simply an individual, as the group-mentality allows members of the group to delve into the history of the aforementioned group and act as if any action against any individual who professes the same ideas as that group, past, present, or future, as any action against the present form of the group in and of itself. In essence, by professing the label "atheist," the atheist is now a member of a group and has a justification for taking actions against enemies of the group. This is not unique to any specific group; it is merely a statement of fact.

Therefore, the atheist, has a moral right-not injunction- to act against enemies of atheism in the name of retribution or revenge up to but not exceeding the amount of damage done previously to the individual of the atheist group. In this case, the atheist is justified in taking any violent actions that he wants (since the amount of damage previously caused to the group cannot possibly be exceeded in modern times) against any religious group or sect that persecuted atheists in the past.

This is in response to those religious fanatics that are fine with atheism as long as atheists "don't bash religion." Considering the figurative and literal bashing that atheists have been subjected to in the past by the very groups of the aforementioned individual(s), retribution is justified.

This is sarcastic to make a point right? I never know with you..

At 8/8/2013 5:21:21 AM, sdavio wrote:
This is sarcastic to make a point right? I never know with you..

Not at all.

At 8/8/2013 5:27:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:21:21 AM, sdavio wrote:
This is sarcastic to make a point right? I never know with you..

Not at all.

What makes a person responsible for the actions of someone completely unrelated from them, apart from their ideas falling under the same heading?

At 8/8/2013 5:37:52 AM, sdavio wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:27:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:21:21 AM, sdavio wrote:
This is sarcastic to make a point right? I never know with you..

Not at all.

What makes a person responsible for the actions of someone completely unrelated from them, apart from their ideas falling under the same heading?

By joining the organization, they automatically condone both the previous actions of the organization and the paradigm of rules that made those actions possible.

For example, anybody who is a a Nazi condones the Holocaust by adopting that label.

At 8/8/2013 5:14:47 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Since the invention of religion, those unfortunate enough not to be regaled by the "holy spirit" have been subjected to all sorts of depraved and sanguinary means of torture and execution. Whether it be murder by the masses or a systematic means of depriving life, the end result for those that did not profess to believe in the same deity as an arbitrary group of Nomadic settlers was the same. For thousands of years, the atheist has had to hide behind a cowl and mask, relinquishing his true identity. However, by nature of this persecution, the atheist is justified in revenge, which argument I will develop henceforth.

Now, the atheist is neither left nor right, and does not profess any sort of objective moral code to be followed by the masses. The sole defining characteristic of atheism is the adherence to a belief, or rather a lack of belief, shared by many like-minded individuals, and with adherence to the belief, there is no plausible reason to not label the atheist as part of a group of atheists. A group is, inevitably, different from simply an individual, as the group-mentality allows members of the group to delve into the history of the aforementioned group and act as if any action against any individual who professes the same ideas as that group, past, present, or future, as any action against the present form of the group in and of itself. In essence, by professing the label "atheist," the atheist is now a member of a group and has a justification for taking actions against enemies of the group. This is not unique to any specific group; it is merely a statement of fact.

Therefore, the atheist, has a moral right-not injunction- to act against enemies of atheism in the name of retribution or revenge up to but not exceeding the amount of damage done previously to the individual of the atheist group. In this case, the atheist is justified in taking any violent actions that he wants (since the amount of damage previously caused to the group cannot possibly be exceeded in modern times) against any religious group or sect that persecuted atheists in the past.

It wasn't only those who were not given the advantage of holy spirit that were tortured and died, many who were given it were destroyed, often very cruelly also.

In a sense I can understand Atheism, after all, I've been there in the past , albeit briefly, but having been there I now realise fully how blind I was, and therefore they still are, so I have a great deal of pity for them.

One common, though not universal, characteristic of Atheists is exactly what I was suffering from at the time, and that is bitterness, needing someone to blame for what is often our own fault because of poor decisions, or simply because of things which God is not truly responsible for, like the results of the rebellion by Satan and Adam and Eve.

Unfortunately, by not, in their bitterness, bothering to find out the real truth behind it all, they are, in effect, cutting of their own noses to spite their faces, as well as scoring points for Satan and his hordes.

Hence the pity, because they don't know, and probably won't know until it is too late, exactly what they are really missing out on.

At 8/8/2013 6:09:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:14:47 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Since the invention of religion, those unfortunate enough not to be regaled by the "holy spirit" have been subjected to all sorts of depraved and sanguinary means of torture and execution. Whether it be murder by the masses or a systematic means of depriving life, the end result for those that did not profess to believe in the same deity as an arbitrary group of Nomadic settlers was the same. For thousands of years, the atheist has had to hide behind a cowl and mask, relinquishing his true identity. However, by nature of this persecution, the atheist is justified in revenge, which argument I will develop henceforth.

Now, the atheist is neither left nor right, and does not profess any sort of objective moral code to be followed by the masses. The sole defining characteristic of atheism is the adherence to a belief, or rather a lack of belief, shared by many like-minded individuals, and with adherence to the belief, there is no plausible reason to not label the atheist as part of a group of atheists. A group is, inevitably, different from simply an individual, as the group-mentality allows members of the group to delve into the history of the aforementioned group and act as if any action against any individual who professes the same ideas as that group, past, present, or future, as any action against the present form of the group in and of itself. In essence, by professing the label "atheist," the atheist is now a member of a group and has a justification for taking actions against enemies of the group. This is not unique to any specific group; it is merely a statement of fact.

Therefore, the atheist, has a moral right-not injunction- to act against enemies of atheism in the name of retribution or revenge up to but not exceeding the amount of damage done previously to the individual of the atheist group. In this case, the atheist is justified in taking any violent actions that he wants (since the amount of damage previously caused to the group cannot possibly be exceeded in modern times) against any religious group or sect that persecuted atheists in the past.

It wasn't only those who were not given the advantage of holy spirit that were tortured and died, many who were given it were destroyed, often very cruelly also.

In a sense I can understand Atheism, after all, I've been there in the past , albeit briefly, but having been there I now realise fully how blind I was, and therefore they still are, so I have a great deal of pity for them.

One common, though not universal, characteristic of Atheists is exactly what I was suffering from at the time, and that is bitterness, needing someone to blame for what is often our own fault because of poor decisions, or simply because of things which God is not truly responsible for, like the results of the rebellion by Satan and Adam and Eve.

Unfortunately, by not, in their bitterness, bothering to find out the real truth behind it all, they are, in effect, cutting of their own noses to spite their faces, as well as scoring points for Satan and his hordes.

Hence the pity, because they don't know, and probably won't know until it is too late, exactly what they are really missing out on.

As much as your preachy pseudo-psychology might be considered valid by the mentally deranged, it has no effect on me.

Also, it's completely irrelevant to the main topic.

At 8/8/2013 6:00:04 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:37:52 AM, sdavio wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:27:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:21:21 AM, sdavio wrote:
This is sarcastic to make a point right? I never know with you..

Not at all.

What makes a person responsible for the actions of someone completely unrelated from them, apart from their ideas falling under the same heading?

By joining the organization, they automatically condone both the previous actions of the organization and the paradigm of rules that made those actions possible.

For example, anybody who is a a Nazi condones the Holocaust by adopting that label.

I don;'t think you can, with any sense of Justice, apply any judgement on the past actions of others in an organisation. After all, they may have learned where they went wrong and put it right.

However I do agree it should make you very wary about the truth of any groups current stance, and cause you to check them out thoroughly before joining.

At 8/8/2013 6:46:02 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

At 8/8/2013 6:00:04 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:37:52 AM, sdavio wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:27:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:21:21 AM, sdavio wrote:
This is sarcastic to make a point right? I never know with you..

Not at all.

What makes a person responsible for the actions of someone completely unrelated from them, apart from their ideas falling under the same heading?

By joining the organization, they automatically condone both the previous actions of the organization and the paradigm of rules that made those actions possible.

For example, anybody who is a a Nazi condones the Holocaust by adopting that label.

I don;'t think you can, with any sense of Justice, apply any judgement on the past actions of others in an organisation. After all, they may have learned where they went wrong and put it right.

However I do agree it should make you very wary about the truth of any groups current stance, and cause you to check them out thoroughly before joining.

That might be applicable if the organization has changed the single piece of writing from which all of its ideas are and were based- it hasn't.

At 8/8/2013 6:12:10 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 6:09:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:14:47 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Since the invention of religion, those unfortunate enough not to be regaled by the "holy spirit" have been subjected to all sorts of depraved and sanguinary means of torture and execution. Whether it be murder by the masses or a systematic means of depriving life, the end result for those that did not profess to believe in the same deity as an arbitrary group of Nomadic settlers was the same. For thousands of years, the atheist has had to hide behind a cowl and mask, relinquishing his true identity. However, by nature of this persecution, the atheist is justified in revenge, which argument I will develop henceforth.

Now, the atheist is neither left nor right, and does not profess any sort of objective moral code to be followed by the masses. The sole defining characteristic of atheism is the adherence to a belief, or rather a lack of belief, shared by many like-minded individuals, and with adherence to the belief, there is no plausible reason to not label the atheist as part of a group of atheists. A group is, inevitably, different from simply an individual, as the group-mentality allows members of the group to delve into the history of the aforementioned group and act as if any action against any individual who professes the same ideas as that group, past, present, or future, as any action against the present form of the group in and of itself. In essence, by professing the label "atheist," the atheist is now a member of a group and has a justification for taking actions against enemies of the group. This is not unique to any specific group; it is merely a statement of fact.

Therefore, the atheist, has a moral right-not injunction- to act against enemies of atheism in the name of retribution or revenge up to but not exceeding the amount of damage done previously to the individual of the atheist group. In this case, the atheist is justified in taking any violent actions that he wants (since the amount of damage previously caused to the group cannot possibly be exceeded in modern times) against any religious group or sect that persecuted atheists in the past.

It wasn't only those who were not given the advantage of holy spirit that were tortured and died, many who were given it were destroyed, often very cruelly also.

In a sense I can understand Atheism, after all, I've been there in the past , albeit briefly, but having been there I now realise fully how blind I was, and therefore they still are, so I have a great deal of pity for them.

One common, though not universal, characteristic of Atheists is exactly what I was suffering from at the time, and that is bitterness, needing someone to blame for what is often our own fault because of poor decisions, or simply because of things which God is not truly responsible for, like the results of the rebellion by Satan and Adam and Eve.

Unfortunately, by not, in their bitterness, bothering to find out the real truth behind it all, they are, in effect, cutting of their own noses to spite their faces, as well as scoring points for Satan and his hordes.

Hence the pity, because they don't know, and probably won't know until it is too late, exactly what they are really missing out on.

As much as your preachy pseudo-psychology might be considered valid by the mentally deranged, it has no effect on me.

Also, it's completely irrelevant to the main topic.

The main topic is "Atheist Wrath" and my post addresses that completely.

I didn't expect it to have any effect on you, but I felt it needed explaining none the less., and there is nothing Pseudo about it, it is the result of personal experience with observation added to that experience.

The other thing I have observed about Atheists is a tendency to think they are smarter than everybody else. You appear to fit into that bracket.

At 8/8/2013 5:14:47 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Since the invention of religion, those unfortunate enough not to be regaled by the "holy spirit" have been subjected to all sorts of depraved and sanguinary means of torture and execution. Whether it be murder by the masses or a systematic means of depriving life, the end result for those that did not profess to believe in the same deity as an arbitrary group of Nomadic settlers was the same. For thousands of years, the atheist has had to hide behind a cowl and mask, relinquishing his true identity. However, by nature of this persecution, the atheist is justified in revenge, which argument I will develop henceforth.

Now, the atheist is neither left nor right, and does not profess any sort of objective moral code to be followed by the masses. The sole defining characteristic of atheism is the adherence to a belief, or rather a lack of belief, shared by many like-minded individuals, and with adherence to the belief, there is no plausible reason to not label the atheist as part of a group of atheists. A group is, inevitably, different from simply an individual, as the group-mentality allows members of the group to delve into the history of the aforementioned group and act as if any action against any individual who professes the same ideas as that group, past, present, or future, as any action against the present form of the group in and of itself. In essence, by professing the label "atheist," the atheist is now a member of a group and has a justification for taking actions against enemies of the group. This is not unique to any specific group; it is merely a statement of fact.

Therefore, the atheist, has a moral right-not injunction- to act against enemies of atheism in the name of retribution or revenge up to but not exceeding the amount of damage done previously to the individual of the atheist group. In this case, the atheist is justified in taking any violent actions that he wants (since the amount of damage previously caused to the group cannot possibly be exceeded in modern times) against any religious group or sect that persecuted atheists in the past.

ok, no. Firstly, there are many atheists that support objective morality on a secular level. Secondly, there is no adherence to any belief implicit in the term "atheist". Atheism is the description of the negative to theism - and capitalizes on the subtle yet crucial difference between lack of belief and belief in the lack thereof. So there is no defining characteristic or positive modus operandi with which all atheists may cohere into a unified group.

Lastly, you're advocating a harshly divisive course of action that defeats the goals pursued by that subset of atheists seeking social reform - making yourself the Malcolm X of new atheism.

At 8/8/2013 6:58:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:14:47 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Since the invention of religion, those unfortunate enough not to be regaled by the "holy spirit" have been subjected to all sorts of depraved and sanguinary means of torture and execution. Whether it be murder by the masses or a systematic means of depriving life, the end result for those that did not profess to believe in the same deity as an arbitrary group of Nomadic settlers was the same. For thousands of years, the atheist has had to hide behind a cowl and mask, relinquishing his true identity. However, by nature of this persecution, the atheist is justified in revenge, which argument I will develop henceforth.

Now, the atheist is neither left nor right, and does not profess any sort of objective moral code to be followed by the masses. The sole defining characteristic of atheism is the adherence to a belief, or rather a lack of belief, shared by many like-minded individuals, and with adherence to the belief, there is no plausible reason to not label the atheist as part of a group of atheists. A group is, inevitably, different from simply an individual, as the group-mentality allows members of the group to delve into the history of the aforementioned group and act as if any action against any individual who professes the same ideas as that group, past, present, or future, as any action against the present form of the group in and of itself. In essence, by professing the label "atheist," the atheist is now a member of a group and has a justification for taking actions against enemies of the group. This is not unique to any specific group; it is merely a statement of fact.

Therefore, the atheist, has a moral right-not injunction- to act against enemies of atheism in the name of retribution or revenge up to but not exceeding the amount of damage done previously to the individual of the atheist group. In this case, the atheist is justified in taking any violent actions that he wants (since the amount of damage previously caused to the group cannot possibly be exceeded in modern times) against any religious group or sect that persecuted atheists in the past.

ok, no. Firstly, there are many atheists that support objective morality on a secular level.

I'd laugh while they try to justify objective morality without invoking a deity.

Secondly, there is no adherence to any belief implicit in the term "atheist". Atheism is the description of the negative to theism - and capitalizes on the subtle yet crucial difference between lack of belief and belief in the lack thereof. So there is no defining characteristic or positive modus operandi with which all atheists may cohere into a unified group.

There might be no positive statement that unites atheists, but there still remains a common characteristic that is shared by all atheists, which is the lack of belief in a god- whether it's a positive statement is irrelevant. For example, people who believed that the world was not going to end in 2012 could be characterized under a label, regardless of whether they were making a positive claim.

Lastly, you're advocating a harshly divisive course of action that defeats the goals pursued by that subset of atheists seeking social reform - making yourself the Malcolm X of new atheism.

More or less.

Sounds like a No True Scotsman

At 8/8/2013 7:09:14 AM, FrackJack wrote:
Sounds like a No True Scotsman

Not really. I don't see how saying anybody who doesn't believe that there is no deity is not an atheist is invalid.

At 8/8/2013 7:10:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:09:14 AM, FrackJack wrote:
Sounds like a No True Scotsman

Not really. I don't see how saying anybody who doesn't believe that there is no deity is not an atheist is invalid.

"No true Christian is tolerant towards atheists".

not even gonna comment

At 8/8/2013 7:08:58 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 6:58:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

ok, no. Firstly, there are many atheists that support objective morality on a secular level.

I'd laugh while they try to justify objective morality without invoking a deity.

Objective morality is absurd, deity or no deity. Ethics decreed by God are still subjective. So I don't see why you think God is necessary for any of that. People try to find universal morality from axioms about human existence and presumptions about behavioral consistency, if not God. They're all equally invalid.

Secondly, there is no adherence to any belief implicit in the term "atheist". Atheism is the description of the negative to theism - and capitalizes on the subtle yet crucial difference between lack of belief and belief in the lack thereof. So there is no defining characteristic or positive modus operandi with which all atheists may cohere into a unified group.

There might be no positive statement that unites atheists, but there still remains a common characteristic that is shared by all atheists, which is the lack of belief in a god- whether it's a positive statement is irrelevant. For example, people who believed that the world was not going to end in 2012 could be characterized under a label, regardless of whether they were making a positive claim.

If you're using the correct definition of atheism, an apple is an atheist. So is a rock. How do you include them in this supposed group mentality?

Lastly, you're advocating a harshly divisive course of action that defeats the goals pursued by that subset of atheists seeking social reform - making yourself the Malcolm X of new atheism.

More or less.

So you're saying that you understand how fruitless and stupid retaliation is?

At 8/8/2013 7:16:14 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:08:58 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 6:58:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

ok, no. Firstly, there are many atheists that support objective morality on a secular level.

I'd laugh while they try to justify objective morality without invoking a deity.

Objective morality is absurd, deity or no deity. Ethics decreed by God are still subjective. So I don't see why you think God is necessary for any of that. People try to find universal morality from axioms about human existence and presumptions about behavioral consistency, if not God. They're all equally invalid.

There's a way around that by claiming god isn't a "being," but I presently have no interest in this topic.

Secondly, there is no adherence to any belief implicit in the term "atheist". Atheism is the description of the negative to theism - and capitalizes on the subtle yet crucial difference between lack of belief and belief in the lack thereof. So there is no defining characteristic or positive modus operandi with which all atheists may cohere into a unified group.

There might be no positive statement that unites atheists, but there still remains a common characteristic that is shared by all atheists, which is the lack of belief in a god- whether it's a positive statement is irrelevant. For example, people who believed that the world was not going to end in 2012 could be characterized under a label, regardless of whether they were making a positive claim.

If you're using the correct definition of atheism, an apple is an atheist. So is a rock. How do you include them in this supposed group mentality?

Way to strawman, dude.

I don't even need to say what's wrong with this.

Lastly, you're advocating a harshly divisive course of action that defeats the goals pursued by that subset of atheists seeking social reform - making yourself the Malcolm X of new atheism.

More or less.

So you're saying that you understand how fruitless and stupid retaliation is?

Malcolm X had huge influence and impact on the black crowd of both the past and the present.

At 8/8/2013 7:14:58 AM, FrackJack wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:10:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:09:14 AM, FrackJack wrote:
Sounds like a No True Scotsman

Not really. I don't see how saying anybody who doesn't believe that there is no deity is not an atheist is invalid.

"No true Christian is tolerant towards atheists".

I never said that.

At 8/8/2013 7:24:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:14:58 AM, FrackJack wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:10:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:09:14 AM, FrackJack wrote:
Sounds like a No True Scotsman

Not really. I don't see how saying anybody who doesn't believe that there is no deity is not an atheist is invalid.

"No true Christian is tolerant towards atheists".

I never said that.

Then you have a bad memory.

At 8/8/2013 7:24:07 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:16:14 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:08:58 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 6:58:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

ok, no. Firstly, there are many atheists that support objective morality on a secular level.

I'd laugh while they try to justify objective morality without invoking a deity.

Objective morality is absurd, deity or no deity. Ethics decreed by God are still subjective. So I don't see why you think God is necessary for any of that. People try to find universal morality from axioms about human existence and presumptions about behavioral consistency, if not God. They're all equally invalid.

There's a way around that by claiming god isn't a "being," but I presently have no interest in this topic.

No, there really isn't. The reasoning against objective morality stems from a categorical logical incompleteness in blind normative demands - regardless of where that blind normative demand comes from. There's no such thing as a "way around it".

Secondly, there is no adherence to any belief implicit in the term "atheist". Atheism is the description of the negative to theism - and capitalizes on the subtle yet crucial difference between lack of belief and belief in the lack thereof. So there is no defining characteristic or positive modus operandi with which all atheists may cohere into a unified group.

There might be no positive statement that unites atheists, but there still remains a common characteristic that is shared by all atheists, which is the lack of belief in a god- whether it's a positive statement is irrelevant. For example, people who believed that the world was not going to end in 2012 could be characterized under a label, regardless of whether they were making a positive claim.

If you're using the correct definition of atheism, an apple is an atheist. So is a rock. How do you include them in this supposed group mentality?

Way to strawman, dude.

I don't even need to say what's wrong with this.

So you concede. Noted.

Lastly, you're advocating a harshly divisive course of action that defeats the goals pursued by that subset of atheists seeking social reform - making yourself the Malcolm X of new atheism.

More or less.

So you're saying that you understand how fruitless and stupid retaliation is?

Malcolm X had huge influence and impact on the black crowd of both the past and the present.

Malcolm X did not bring about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

At 8/8/2013 6:49:47 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

At 8/8/2013 6:12:10 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 6:09:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:14:47 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Since the invention of religion, those unfortunate enough not to be regaled by the "holy spirit" have been subjected to all sorts of depraved and sanguinary means of torture and execution. Whether it be murder by the masses or a systematic means of depriving life, the end result for those that did not profess to believe in the same deity as an arbitrary group of Nomadic settlers was the same. For thousands of years, the atheist has had to hide behind a cowl and mask, relinquishing his true identity. However, by nature of this persecution, the atheist is justified in revenge, which argument I will develop henceforth.

Now, the atheist is neither left nor right, and does not profess any sort of objective moral code to be followed by the masses. The sole defining characteristic of atheism is the adherence to a belief, or rather a lack of belief, shared by many like-minded individuals, and with adherence to the belief, there is no plausible reason to not label the atheist as part of a group of atheists. A group is, inevitably, different from simply an individual, as the group-mentality allows members of the group to delve into the history of the aforementioned group and act as if any action against any individual who professes the same ideas as that group, past, present, or future, as any action against the present form of the group in and of itself. In essence, by professing the label "atheist," the atheist is now a member of a group and has a justification for taking actions against enemies of the group. This is not unique to any specific group; it is merely a statement of fact.

Therefore, the atheist, has a moral right-not injunction- to act against enemies of atheism in the name of retribution or revenge up to but not exceeding the amount of damage done previously to the individual of the atheist group. In this case, the atheist is justified in taking any violent actions that he wants (since the amount of damage previously caused to the group cannot possibly be exceeded in modern times) against any religious group or sect that persecuted atheists in the past.

It wasn't only those who were not given the advantage of holy spirit that were tortured and died, many who were given it were destroyed, often very cruelly also.

In a sense I can understand Atheism, after all, I've been there in the past , albeit briefly, but having been there I now realise fully how blind I was, and therefore they still are, so I have a great deal of pity for them.

One common, though not universal, characteristic of Atheists is exactly what I was suffering from at the time, and that is bitterness, needing someone to blame for what is often our own fault because of poor decisions, or simply because of things which God is not truly responsible for, like the results of the rebellion by Satan and Adam and Eve.

Unfortunately, by not, in their bitterness, bothering to find out the real truth behind it all, they are, in effect, cutting of their own noses to spite their faces, as well as scoring points for Satan and his hordes.

Hence the pity, because they don't know, and probably won't know until it is too late, exactly what they are really missing out on.

As much as your preachy pseudo-psychology might be considered valid by the mentally deranged, it has no effect on me.

Also, it's completely irrelevant to the main topic.

The main topic is "Atheist Wrath" and my post addresses that completely.

I didn't expect it to have any effect on you, but I felt it needed explaining none the less., and there is nothing Pseudo about it, it is the result of personal experience with observation added to that experience.

The other thing I have observed about Atheists is a tendency to think they are smarter than everybody else. You appear to fit into that bracket.

And don't forget the invisible spook. It has much more experience than you. bwuahahahaha

You draw a long bow that has always had a broken string.

The sheer ridiculousness of proposing that an atheist has a moral right to take revenge against theists for actions of forbears hundreds if not thousands of years part is utterly preposterous. That iniquity has occurred few would doubt. That said iniquity occurred does not in any way justify violence. You have to draw a line at which people are not culpable for the actions of their forbears, actions which they had no control over. It's the legal principle of intent at work. If anybody has a right to violence based upon past persecution then we would see a collapse in society. Every war, every form of discrimination, from slavery to sexism to genocide to war crimes... that these are wrong no one denies. That imitating these wrongs is a moral right is an insane policy to prescribe.

And I should further like to add that the label does not condone past actions. When a person labels themselves a Christian they do not claim to have supported the Crusades, the Inquisition or any no. of things. They simply claim a belief in a certain God and belief in certain stories being true to a degree.

Those are strong words, but let it be perfectly clear - the OP's ideas are, to be blunt, madness and a path to utter chaos if enacted.

At 8/8/2013 6:00:04 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:37:52 AM, sdavio wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:27:45 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 5:21:21 AM, sdavio wrote:
This is sarcastic to make a point right? I never know with you..

Not at all.

What makes a person responsible for the actions of someone completely unrelated from them, apart from their ideas falling under the same heading?

By joining the organization, they automatically condone both the previous actions of the organization and the paradigm of rules that made those actions possible.

For example, anybody who is a a Nazi condones the Holocaust by adopting that label.

Wait, you're actually serious.

"sanguinary "

Stahp.

It's stupid to start a feud like this. Especially when fighting for freedom of religious belief.

Finally an intelligent post.

At 8/8/2013 7:45:51 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
You draw a long bow that has always had a broken string.

The sheer ridiculousness of proposing that an atheist has a moral right to take revenge against theists for actions of forbears hundreds if not thousands of years part is utterly preposterous. That iniquity has occurred few would doubt. That said iniquity occurred does not in any way justify violence. You have to draw a line at which people are not culpable for the actions of their forbears, actions which they had no control over. It's the legal principle of intent at work. If anybody has a right to violence based upon past persecution then we would see a collapse in society. Every war, every form of discrimination, from slavery to sexism to genocide to war crimes... that these are wrong no one denies. That imitating these wrongs is a moral right is an insane policy to prescribe.

The crux of your argument in relation to my argument is located below, so to avoid repetition, I will not offer any rebuttals to the above paragraph.

And I should further like to add that the label does not condone past actions. When a person labels themselves a Christian they do not claim to have supported the Crusades, the Inquisition or any no. of things. They simply claim a belief in a certain God and belief in certain stories being true to a degree.

Very few Christians would consciously support any of the above actions- I'm in agreement with you thus far. However, this is not necessarily relevant to my argument. By joining Christianity, they are condoning an institution that, although it may not currently condemn, still operates under the exact same principles and guidelines as it did when all the iniquity (thanks for the word) occured. In essence, by joining Christianity, you're endorsing the principles that made the violence start. If you endorse the exact same principles of your fore bearers, it is justified to view yourself and them as part of the same group.

Similarly to how obtaining citizenships means that you condone the government of that region, joining Christianity means that you condone the institution that made the systematic hatred possible (note that even though country=/= government, citizenship is a product of the government).

Those are strong words, but let it be perfectly clear - the OP's ideas are, to be blunt, madness and a path to utter chaos if enacted.

At 8/8/2013 7:28:35 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:24:07 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:16:14 AM, 000ike wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:08:58 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 6:58:06 AM, 000ike wrote:

ok, no. Firstly, there are many atheists that support objective morality on a secular level.

I'd laugh while they try to justify objective morality without invoking a deity.

Objective morality is absurd, deity or no deity. Ethics decreed by God are still subjective. So I don't see why you think God is necessary for any of that. People try to find universal morality from axioms about human existence and presumptions about behavioral consistency, if not God. They're all equally invalid.

There's a way around that by claiming god isn't a "being," but I presently have no interest in this topic.

No, there really isn't. The reasoning against objective morality stems from a categorical logical incompleteness in blind normative demands - regardless of where that blind normative demand comes from. There's no such thing as a "way around it".

If you argue that God is everything, which is a reasonable inference from omnipotence, then his rules could be classified as laws, similarly to the laws of physics, instead of moral normative claims.

Secondly, there is no adherence to any belief implicit in the term "atheist". Atheism is the description of the negative to theism - and capitalizes on the subtle yet crucial difference between lack of belief and belief in the lack thereof. So there is no defining characteristic or positive modus operandi with which all atheists may cohere into a unified group.

There might be no positive statement that unites atheists, but there still remains a common characteristic that is shared by all atheists, which is the lack of belief in a god- whether it's a positive statement is irrelevant. For example, people who believed that the world was not going to end in 2012 could be characterized under a label, regardless of whether they were making a positive claim.

If you're using the correct definition of atheism, an apple is an atheist. So is a rock. How do you include them in this supposed group mentality?

Way to strawman, dude.

I don't even need to say what's wrong with this.

So you concede. Noted.

Lol. I thought the whole "apples and rocks don't have the capacity to think and reason about a deity and thus don't have any opinion about his existence" was a pretty obvious argument.

Lastly, you're advocating a harshly divisive course of action that defeats the goals pursued by that subset of atheists seeking social reform - making yourself the Malcolm X of new atheism.

More or less.

So you're saying that you understand how fruitless and stupid retaliation is?

Malcolm X had huge influence and impact on the black crowd of both the past and the present.

Malcolm X did not bring about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Legislation is not the only measure of success.

At 8/8/2013 7:27:40 AM, FrackJack wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:24:43 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:14:58 AM, FrackJack wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:10:54 AM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 8/8/2013 7:09:14 AM, FrackJack wrote:
Sounds like a No True Scotsman

Not really. I don't see how saying anybody who doesn't believe that there is no deity is not an atheist is invalid.

"No true Christian is tolerant towards atheists".

I never said that.

Then you have a bad memory.

My argument was never that Christians nowadays want to murder atheists- it was that they endorse a group, whose principles were responsible for the systematic iniquity against atheists.