cfdbb16b   
   From: zzz.zzz@qqq.net   
      
   Reaper G wrote:   
      
   > Yeah, yeah, you're so much superior to people who believe in something   
   > that you don't. We get it.   
      
   Again, your strawmen, you burn it.   
      
   >> The key word is *advocating*, i.e. promoting a   
   >> view by peaceful means, as opposed to what the religious fanatics have   
   >> been doing for millenniums now - religious genocide, the Inquisition,   
   >> the pogroms, torture, murder, rape, wars, Crusades, forced conversions,   
   >> suicide bombings, etc.   
   >> How is Dawkins different from all this??? Well, I suppose he isn't, if   
   >> you're a moron.   
   >   
   > Jesus never   
      
   existed.   
      
   supported all those above misdeeds, and depending on who   
   > you talk to, neither did Mohammad. If an over-exuberant Dawkins fan   
   > hijacked a plane and crashed it into the Vatican, I wouldn't be   
   > surprised.   
      
   But then again, you *are* an idiot, so this masturbatory fantasy is not   
   surprising, while meantime in the real world the rest of us live in,   
   actual fanatics, zealots, bigots and fundamentalists kill people for   
   real, from those who they consider infidels to doctors who perform   
   medical service they disagree with, etc.   
      
   > The above governments actively targeted religion, places of worship   
   > were razed and priests murdered. They also went after intellectuals   
   > and free-thinkers, the very thing Dawkins says he is.   
   >   
   >> All the people you named above also drank water and wore shoes. I   
   >> suppose drinking water and wearing shoes make you a mass murderer.   
   >> Accusing Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot of crimes on the basis of their atheism   
   >> makes as much sense as accusing Hitler of crimes based on his Christianity.   
   >   
   > Hitler found the church to be a useful tool, but he had about as much   
   > use for God in his own life as those other dictators.   
      
   Ah, I was wondering when you were going to hit the True Scotsman fallacy.   
      
   >>>> as well as   
   >>>> the constant suppression of thought, science and progress that continues   
   >>>> to this day, from "Intelligent Design" peddlers in the US to the utter   
   >>>> illiteracy and general backwardness of every Muslim country where church   
   >>>> rules the state?   
   >>> There's no thought, science, or progress in mocking the beliefs of   
   >>> others.   
   >> How is this relevant to anything Dawkins, or even I said?   
   >   
   > It's the biggest problem with the modern atheist movement. Atheists   
   > need an MLK-type leader, not the Jacksons and Sharptons they have   
   > right now.   
      
   [yawn] I've been posting to atheist newsgroups for years now and this   
   type of tripe is something I've heard dozens of times already: when   
   you're unable to answer direct questions, present logical and rational   
   arguments and otherwise make your case, resort to completely irrelevant   
   bullshit, smokescreens, red herrings, strawmen to burn, appeals to   
   emotion, attacks on a person and so on.   
      
   >>> Science, reason, and logic are wonderful things, but they're   
   >>> not the *only* things.   
   >> Yes, and?   
   >>   
   >>> Science won't bring one comfort at the bedside   
   >>> of a dying relative.   
   >> It isn't supposed to, but then, neither is religion.   
   >   
   > Religion does exactly that. Take it from one who's been there.   
      
   Like who gives a fuck? Millions of people killed in the name of one   
   religion or another, billions of dollars wasted annually on religious   
   crap that ends up filling the pocket of the few, thousands of children   
   molested, raped, abused and turned to suicide bombers by religion   
   peddlers, whole civilizations exterminated, scientific and philosophical   
   advancement stifled for centuries, etc, and for what, so little Johnny   
   can feel warm and fuzzy when his puppy gets run over by a bus?   
      
      
   > Okay, take out the actual award, and you'll see that most of the great   
   > humanitarians and people who have tried to make the world a better   
   > place, even at the cost of their own lives, have believed in God and   
   > in many cases have been religious leaders -- Jesus Christ, Francis of   
   > Assisi, Mohandas K. Gandhi, Martin Niemoller, Martin Luther King,   
   > Oscar Romero, and Desmond Tutu, among others. How many atheists fit   
   > that description?   
      
   Millions. Of course, the fact that they are atheists is never trumpeted   
   because it is mostly irrelevant to them and to the people who they   
   helped. Your question is idiotic. People come in all varieties and   
   generally do not fit anyone's stereotype no matter how hard the bigot   
   wishes his bigotry to fit any given group.   
   Btw, way to include imaginary characters like Jesus on your list of   
   people who "tried to make the world a better place".   
      
   >   
   >> 3. Since the prize has been awarded to organizations (UN, MSF, ICBL,   
   >> UNPF, IPPNW, UNHCR, AI, ILO, UNCF, Red Cross...) in addition to   
   >> individuals, the list of recepients symbolically, at least, extends to   
   >> literally hundreds of millions. How many of those millions are atheists?   
   >> I don't know. Why is this relevant to begin with? Is the measure of a   
   >> philosophical worldview valued by the number of its proponents?   
   >   
   > Sure there are many atheists in these organizations, but many more are   
   > believers.   
      
   You asked how many people were given a Nobel Piece Prize. I answered.   
   The horse is dead and there's no need to beat him further.   
      
   > There are also very many faith-based charities that bring   
   > aid to the poor. If there are any atheism-based charites like this,   
   > I'd be genuinely supportive of them.   
      
   There are no "atheism-based charities" for the same reason that there   
   are no charities comprised of people who don't believe in UFOs, or   
   charities comprised of people who don't collect stamps. Atheism is   
   simply a lack of belief in a deity. Period. Anything more that is   
   ascribed to atheism is a red herring generally coming from the pulpits   
   of religion peddlers who fear atheism because it empties their churches'   
   coffers, which I understand is totally inconvenient because they would   
   then have to go out and look for a real job instead of being social   
   parasites.   
      
      
   > Why is it relevant? Because so   
   > many in your camp talk about how bad religious people can be. I'm   
   > pointing out how good they can be as well.   
      
   Once again - any reaction you get from atheists and secularists today is   
   just that, a reaction to the increasing religious interference with all   
   our lives, from Islamic lunatics sending children to blow themselves up   
   to Christian lunatics shooting abortion providers.   
   Learn to keep you religion within your homes and churches and stop   
   shoving it down our collective throat and no one will give you a second   
   thought.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   If you don't beat your meat   
   You can't have any pudding   
   How can you have any pudding   
   If you don't beat your meat?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)