Atheism and cowardice

Atheism and cowardice

There are 12674 comments on the Conservapedia story from Nov 18, 2011, titled Atheism and cowardice. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Have any of the New Atheists toured [[Islam]]ic countries giving lectures in which they condemn [[Allah]], [[Muhammad]], Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

LCN Llin

United States

#10748 Aug 1, 2013
Thinking wrote:
30 year old speech that the Queen never even saw... thanks.
<quoted text>
Interesting as the UK reveals state secrets.

The Queen and her sister Princess Margaret Rose, did a wonderful job of keeping moral high during the 1939 to 1945 war.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10749 Aug 1, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
UK Tax money at work - BBC News
The Queen was expected to urge the people of the United Kingdom to "pray" in the event of a nuclear war, government documents from 1983 reveal.
The script for a hypothetical broadcast has the monarch describing the threat to the "brave country" as "greater" than any other in history.
It also mentions the Queen's son Prince Andrew, then in the Royal Navy.
Devised by Whitehall officials at one of the most fraught periods of the Cold War, it was never recorded.
The document, released by the government under the 30-year rule, was drawn up as part of a war-gaming exercise in the spring of 1983, working through potential scenarios.
'Terrors'
Although it was only a simulation, the text of the Queen's address - written as if broadcast at midday on Friday 4 March 1983 - seeks to prepare the country for the ordeal of World War III.
The script reads: "Now this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.
Prince Andrew The speech includes a reference to Prince Andrew, then serving in the Royal Navy
"I have never forgotten the sorrow and the pride I felt as my sister and I huddled around the nursery wireless set listening to my father's [George VI's] inspiring words on that fateful day in 1939 [at the start of the World War II].
"Not for a single moment did I imagine that this solemn and awful duty would one day fall to me.
"But whatever terrors lie in wait for us all, the qualities that have helped to keep our freedom intact twice already during this sad century will once more be our strength."
Striking a personal note, the script continues: "My husband and I share with families up and down the land the fear we feel for sons and daughters, husbands and brothers who have left our side to serve their country.
"My beloved son Andrew is at this moment in action with his unit and we pray continually for his safety and for the safety of all servicemen and women at home and overseas.
"It is this close bond of family life that must be our greatest defence against the unknown.
"If families remain united and resolute, giving shelter to those living alone and unprotected, our country's will to survive cannot be broken."
In the war-gaming exercise, Orange bloc forces - representing the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies - launch a chemical weapon attack on the UK.
Blue forces - representing Nato - retaliate with a "limited-yield" nuclear strike, forcing Orange to sue for peace.
The exercise came in the year that US President Ronald Reagan both enraged and alarmed Moscow with his denunciation of the Soviet Union as the "evil empire", his plans for a "Star Wars" ballistic missile shield in space, and the deployment of US nuclear cruise missiles to Europe - including to RAF Greenham Common.
Tensions increased when the Soviets shot down a South Korean airliner that strayed into their airspace, killing all 269 on board.
A Nato military exercise, codenamed Able Archer, then nearly triggered an actual conflict with the Soviet leadership apparently convinced it was cover for a genuine attack.
The Soviet Union and the US later negotiated a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons, as the Cold War came to an end.
Creationist News Network, sh*tting directly into the atheism forum once again.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10750 Aug 1, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting as the UK reveals state secrets.
The Queen and her sister Princess Margaret Rose, did a wonderful job of keeping moral high during the 1939 to 1945 war.
Coward with no proof of god fooling nobody.
LCN Llin

United States

#10751 Aug 1, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting as the UK reveals state secrets.
The Queen and her sister Princess Margaret Rose, did a wonderful job of keeping moral high during the 1939 to 1945 war.
Skeptic-"Coward with no proof of God fooling nobody."
Is the Queen or Princess Margaret Rose, now diseased, the aim or your daily comedy ?
LOL

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10752 Aug 1, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting as the UK reveals state secrets.
The Queen and her sister Princess Margaret Rose, did a wonderful job of keeping moral high during the 1939 to 1945 war.
Skeptic-"Coward with no proof of God fooling nobody."
Is the Queen or Princess Margaret Rose, now diseased, the aim or your daily comedy ?
LOL
Atheists are not the doctors of the mentally ill. See your local psychiatrist if you are hallucinating, and believe that lying about your cults beliefs to complete strangers is normal behaviour.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#10753 Aug 1, 2013
Princess Margaret's not just diseased, she's bleeding snuffed it.

PS I've never heard anyone refer to the Rose part of her name
LCN Llin wrote:
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the Queen or Princess Margaret Rose, now diseased, the aim or your daily comedy ?
LOL
LCN Llin

United States

#10754 Aug 1, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Princess Margaret's not just diseased, she's bleeding snuffed it.
PS I've never heard anyone refer to the Rose part of her name
<quoted text>
Was a 1939 to 1945 War thing.- "Margaret Rose"-
Royal family was encouraged to flee to Canada during the Blitz, Queen said she was staying in England with the King.
King took lessons with his pistol to fight any invasion.

The two Princesses went on the radio and talked to children who had fled London because of the bombing. Quite impressive.

Margaret later wanted to marry Group Captain Townsend, a war hero, who was divorced.

Divorced people suffered severe disapproval and could not remarry in the Church of England.:-(

Princess had to break off the romance and this may have ruined her life.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10755 Aug 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Yet... you support a religion that has systematic programs of hiding or perpetuating child abuse in it's many forms.
No, but I don't follow a religion of your imagination. That is cheap shot.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10756 Aug 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
All children are born atheists. That is, without any belief in gods of any sort: atheist.
...
All children naturally lack faith in gods-- when they are born-- and have to have faith **forced** into their defenseless minds with repeated programs if ritualistic lying.
That is a meaningless claim in the context of this argument, and circular in nature much like muslim claims about you were born a muslim - only to be corrupted later.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
There is no "atheistic worldview" any more than there is a "santa claus" worldview.
There are **secular** worldviews,**humanistic** worldviews and so on.
But atheism is simply a lack of faith in supernatural woo.
Worldview is simply the basic orientation of heart that one sees and interprets things through it. Surely you can further classify it, but the most basic classification would be that of theism and atheism. You are the one side of a coin which believes it has only one side.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10757 Aug 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Nope.
The fundamental premise of christianity, if you use the bible to justify it's very existence, is that everyone is worth less than pond scum-- just for being born.
They are to be punished (according to christianity) from something a distant ancestor did-- nothing **they** had anything to do with--apart from the arrogance of being born...
More, christianity teaches that everyone is so worthless, that they somehow deserve infinite torture.
As a result of all this ugly, people pretty much consider human life as worth less than nothing.
**THAT** is the core message of christianity.
Sure-- there's a bit more, but that's it's basis.
If you don't believe in hell theology?
You are not a biblical christian-- you're some sort of pick-and-choose "christian" instead.
More to the point? If you ignore the hell bible-bits? You just tossed out 100% of any reason to have your jesus killed in the first place.
Just as without the mythical garden of Eden? You have no basis for your religion at all.
And the Eden story is another tale of failed parenting--no, not Adam or Eve...
What I'm interested for you to answer is this post: why did you respond to my post in such a manner?(why did you have to dump your hate-christian statement on me when I didn't even talk about it?)

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/T6R...
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
What I don't understand is how you could turn my post that was meant to inform you about the fact that this thread can also be entered from Islam forum into an reply with "insult christians" hate-speech and still speak as if you're a more loving person than Genuine Christians™?
Perhaps you know I'm a christian (or I don't see the purpose of such reply from you). Or did you misunderstand my jokes as some criticism of you, which I never intended? My first joke about "not sure if it also enters from Cowards forum" was not at all referring to you or atheist, but rather a silly inference that Coward forum (unlikely to exist) could be a candidate as entry point into this thread since the other word in the title "Atheist" does have a real fourm.
The other joke where I asked "(did I post this before you read it, or did I post it because of your reading it?)" was because of my assumption (from your Quantum name) that you knew the meaning of my question - the much debated collapse of probabilistic wave functions into reality by conscious observation.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10758 Aug 1, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
But your statement about Genuine Christians being hate-cult is as flawed as claiming that if someone believes human will die then that someone must belong to a hate-cult.
To qualify someone as hateful, you better prove that it is their "wish", rather than their mere belief that others would go to hell, but it has never been Christians wish that others would go to hell (or why bother trying to convert people?)
And, by the same argument you used to judge christians as "hate-cult", couldn't you also have concluded that christians belong to "Love-Cult" because by the other side of the coin that they believe and wish that people would go to heaven? But that argument too would be as fallacious, because mere "belief" of something doesn't tell what the person wants.
Who are your "Genuine Christians", define them? How are they more hateful than atheists in general?
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Nope.
The fundamental premise of christianity, if you use the bible to justify it's very existence, is that everyone is worth less than pond scum-- just for being born.
They are to be punished (according to christianity) from something a distant ancestor did-- nothing **they** had anything to do with--apart from the arrogance of being born...
You are just repeating the same flaw, repeating it doesn't correct it.

Lets put my personal interpretation of the bible and your twisting of it aside for now - what would it take for you to understand that christians belief in the existance of hell, whatever form it is, does nothing to indicate their hatred towards non-believers (just the opposite is true - as I indicated, that christians don't wish for that to happen to anyone, why did you chose to ignore that point?).
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
More, christianity teaches that everyone is so worthless, that they somehow deserve infinite torture.
As a result of all this ugly, people pretty much consider human life as worth less than nothing.
**THAT** is the core message of christianity.
And you followed by pointing out "reason to have Jesus killed"? Why would Jesus go through this if we were to understand "christianity teaches that everyone is so worthless"? John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

I do not know what "perish" would mean and what "hell" would be like, the only conclusive christian understanding is "eternal separation from god" (there is much debate on the nature of "hell").
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Sure-- there's a bit more, but that's it's basis.
If you don't believe in hell theology?
You are not a biblical christian-- you're some sort of pick-and-choose "christian" instead.
More to the point? If you ignore the hell bible-bits? You just tossed out 100% of any reason to have your jesus killed in the first place.
Just as without the mythical garden of Eden? You have no basis for your religion at all.
And the Eden story is another tale of failed parenting--no, not Adam or Eve...
Aren't you assuming too much about my position? Or are you just creating more strawmen to distract from answering why you were so keen and so fast to label christians as "hate-cult" coming out of nowhere in response to my initial post?

And, instead of labeling it "pick and choose", I'm sure you'd call the same process you make as "interpretation". So, if I "pick and choose" so much that I become so out-of-shape that I must just become an atheist, would that then make me disqualified from "hate-cult"? What would you prefer that I do and why then would you bother?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10759 Aug 1, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Religious indoctrination is child abuse.
Don't inflict religion on a child before they're legally allowed to drink.
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
Are you then sure imposition of atheistic worldview to your kids is not a form of "abusive" indoctrination?
No, denying your children from what one know positively affects oneself is a form of child abuse. Parents naturally go with what they believe is best for their childre, and no one would call you an abuser for denying your children a theistic worldview that has proven to help kids in positive ways. It would be child abuse for parents to go to their churches while leaving the kids behind. It would be child-abuse for parents to live one way while trying to hide it from the children. On simply have to live honorably and honestly, and nothing is preventing the kids from thinking for themselves when they grow up.
Thinking wrote:
Well, since most people on the planet don't believe in your god, why not have a christian child, a buddhist child and a hindu child instead of all three the same religion?
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
So, are you responding to my post or are you still talking to yourself? I have no idea what your point is here.
Thinking wrote:
Are you being deliberately evasive or are you just another religitard?
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
no, go back to your response and tell me how it was relevant?
Thinking wrote:
I have an issue with religious ghettoisation caused by indoctrinating children into the same faith as their parents.
You said that enforcing no religion until say 16/18/21 was inflexible.
I suggested an alternative methodology. How was that not relevant?
1. Please explain your sentence "since most people on the planet don't believe in your god, why not have a christian child, a buddhist child and a hindu child instead of all three the same religion?" I don't understand your sentence by itself, even less about how it relates to my post you were replying to?

2. Where did I say "that enforcing no religion until say 16/18/21 was inflexible."? I appreciate posters not twisting my words.

3. My whole point there was that parents will inevitably "indoctrinate" their children by living out their belief, theists or atheists, unless they are hypocrites, they all naturally teach their children what they believe is good, not necessarily through scriptures, but simply by living out their lives as believers. Would it then be "not abusive" for parents to live their lives way while denying their children their natural instinct to follow? How would that work? "Indoctrination" is not natural; no one have "indoctrination" in mind when living their lives to their belief - only when one believe in "otherwise" that "indoctrination" comes in. And kids are not dumb. It is just a flip of a coin, atheists are "indoctrinating" their kids just the same way. Christians kids are not any less happy, I'd actually argue they're more happy and grow up to be more happy from personal observations, how would you convince such parents they are actually abusing their kids?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10760 Aug 1, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
Read of his persecution and tragic death.
He was so young when he died, yet he achieved so much. He wasn't the only mathematician who died deaths in some form of suicides. BBC had a very good program called "Dangerous Knowledge" showing 3 other mathematicians dealing with similar math (bordering philosophy)- Alan Turing, Kirt Godel, Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann - it was one of the best BBC programs I have ever watched. Here is one link for anyone interested: http://www.mathematicswizard.com/index/D/dang...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#10761 Aug 1, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but I don't follow a religion of your imagination. That is cheap shot.
Nope. It's quite accurate-- the Catholic Pedophile Priests is all over the news, sure.

But child abuse is also just as rampant among protestant brands too.

And they are just about as guilty of cover-ups as the Catholics.

So it's a deserving shot-- right to the heart of your cult.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#10762 Aug 1, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a meaningless claim in the context of this argument, and circular in nature much like muslim claims about you were born a muslim - only to be corrupted later.
Nope- it's an accurate observation: babies have no faith of any kind, when they are born.

They have to be abused-- force-fed the lies-- before they develop faith in gods.

Atheism is simply no faith in gods-- thus?

All babies are atheists until they get brainwashed into god-faith.

Atheism isn't a religion.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#10763 Aug 1, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
Worldview is simply the basic orientation of heart that one sees and interprets things through it.
Correct-- and there is no atheistic worldview.

You are full of shyt.
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
Surely you can further classify it, but the most basic classification would be that of theism and atheism. You are the one side of a coin which believes it has only one side.
Nope-- there is no "two sides" to this coin-- the coin either EXISTS (faith/theism) or it is MISSING (atheism/no-faith).

You keep equating NO FAITH as a kind of "belief".

It's not.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#10764 Aug 1, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
<quoted text>
What I'm interested for you to answer is this post: why did you respond to my post in such a manner?(why did you have to dump your hate-christian statement on me when I didn't even talk about it?)
Because I've been on Topix since 2005.

I have more than 70 thousand posts-- the majority of them REPLIES to some post I have read.

In that time, I've learned how to spot a godbot a mile away.

Your little rant trying to re-define atheism as a religion?

Proves to 100% that you are a godbot.

Atheism is NO FAITH IN GODS.

That's it-- it's a LACK.

There is no atheist worldview.

There is no atheist creed.

There is no atheist dogma.

There are no atheist prophets.

There is no atheist bible.

Atheism is NO FAITH IN GODS.

Period.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#10765 Aug 1, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You are just repeating the same flaw, repeating it doesn't correct it.
Lets put my personal interpretation of the bible and your twisting of it aside for now - what would it take for you to understand that christians belief in the existance of hell, whatever form it is, does nothing to indicate their hatred towards non-believers (just the opposite is true - as I indicated, that christians don't wish for that to happen to anyone, why did you chose to ignore that point?).
If you combine hell theology with a JUST god?

Hell theology teaches it's followers that EVERYONE is LESS THAN POND SCUM.

For only worthless, lower-than-dirt people would DESERVE infinite torture, from a **just** deity.

Once you've reduced ALL people to worthless status?

You also learn to hate them as well-- and yourself, of course.

You try to hide that hate with pretty words-- but the hate is there, lurking right under the surface.

Ready to burst forth any time an excuse is found.

So no-- anyone who believes in HELL? Is full of hate.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#10766 Aug 1, 2013
Rusty Tin Can wrote:
... does nothing to indicate their hatred towards non-believers (just the opposite is true - as I indicated, that christians don't wish for that to happen to anyone, why did you chose to ignore that point?).
I ignored it, because it is demonstratively false.

You cannot "love" something you are taught is worthless pond scum.

It's impossible.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#10767 Aug 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
Correct-- and there is no atheistic worldview.
You are full of shyt.
...
Ok, I have enough information about you.

Just another one of those...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 9 min Dogen 1,418
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 18 min u196533dm 32,462
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 1 hr Baffled 1,176
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 6 hr Ben Avraham 100
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Mon Dogen 78,757
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
More from around the web