Tuesday, 11 August 2009

If atheists had no morals.... (religiorant)

we often hear christchumps bitch about the "atheist atrocities" of the last hundred years, for example, Stalin's atheism and China's communist atheistic nature and the eternal anti-favourite, Hitler's atheist evolution believing arse, are all responsible for horrendous atrocities, tens of millions people slaughtered at the hands of these few regimes...

but - just what did atheism have to do with any of that?

And "no", Hitler was not an atheist, but even if he had views that were atheistic, what exactly did they have to do with the millions killed?

"oh but Hitler believed the theory of natural selection?"

urrr, and so what?

Lots of ppl accept the theory of natural selection, myself included, and I would bet that most of us were not involved in any genocides. So, where exactly is the similarity, or even a link between killing millions and "natural selection"? Has there been a study that links "natural selection" to genocide? well, has there?

And even if natural selection *was* the reason touted for Hitler slaughtering millions, then that was a choice Hitler made himself. It wasn't as if all the people who accept "natural selection" in the world got together and elected Hitler to go on a killing spree, in the name of "natural selection".

Did they? Did the Council of Natural Selectarians and the Associates of Natural Selectionistism commission Hitler to wage war to thin out the ethnic minorities?

and besides that, what does "natural selection" have to do with atheism *anyway*, seeing how many religious people also accept natural selection/evolution?

Perhaps the notion of "only the strong will survive" is the message that people extract from Hitler's running amok killing ethnic minorities? *Again* - where is it written or even implied that atheism means you support the notion that "only the strong will survive?"

((Do you see a pattern?))

Just because a whole bunch of people agree with the science of evolution, it doesn't mean that all those people are Hitlers.. seriously, grow the fuck up if that's what you religious idiots think.

and did Stalin starve people to death for atheistic reasons? If he did, just *what* was that purpose(s)?

How can there be an "atheistic" reason in the first place, atheism has no doctrines, no prayers, no affirmations, no rituals, no churches, no holidays, no rules, no book, no guide, no morals, no yadda yadda yadda???

So, just how did being an atheist inspire Stalin to let people starve by the millions, if indeed he was an atheist that is?

well?? where does it say Stalin did such and such because he was an atheist or he did such and such because he didn't believe in god? where *exactly* does it say that?

it doesn't say that anywhere, does it?

So the religious fruit cakes *know* atheists have morals, but they deliberately choose to sustain the petty notion that atheists don't have morals at all by comparing atheists to the handful of leaders that were responsible for millions of deaths because they supposedly had atheistic views. Make a bit of a leap much?

It's also rather dishonest to make a blatant assumption about someone you don't even know by labeling them as being some sort of savage beast operating purely on instinct. thou shalt not bear false witness much? judge not lest yea be judged thyself much? do unto others as you would have them do unto you much as well?

It's especially hypocritical when, say, the Crusades are mentioned. Those slaughters *were* done in the name of Christ. "Oh but that was the Catholics..." is the top lame excuse for christians washing their hands of that atrocity. Did the Catholics have a different Jesus back then? a different bible?

The fact of the matter is that lunatic, George Bush, called the Iraqi war a "Crusade", and I'm thinking more people have died in this latest Crusade than all the previous ones combined. I wonder if the ancient Crusades were instigated by leaders telling their people that the Muslims had weapons of mass destruction back then as well?

No.. Christians do NOT get to wash their hands of responsibility for the Crusades as there is one going on right *now*. Sarah Palin called the Iraqi war a mission for god or something like that, and both Palin and Bush seem to be wildly popular with at least the USA religious fruit cakes who adamantly wash their hands of the Crusades.

So, *clearly*, having christianity or any religion in general has NOTHING to do with being a MORAL person. Killing in the name of your god is never a moral thing, *never*.

But christians know all of this, the just go lah lah lah lah lah not listening to you, when these things are mentioned.

But even if the Crusades do not have anything to do with the christians today, then what's with the audacity of saying that the actions of these alleged atheists of the past have anything to do with the atheists of today anyway??

Hypocrite much?

Seems to me there's a lot of whining on the part of christian fanatics when they do exactly the same thing. eg. who the fuck do they think they are when it's OK for them to point the finger at alleged atheists, the Hitlers and the Stalins of the past, but then they wash their hands of past christian atrocities which have been (and still are) ongoing for millennia, as opposed to this alleged atheistic genocides of the past hundred or so years?

The religious clearly know atheists have morals because if people with atheistic views didn't have morals at all - as so commonly implied on the circus that is myspaz by self righteous people claiming to be christian warriors (it's DARK SIDED!!!) and soldiers and hookers for christ.

If atheists had no morals, wouldn't there be a lot more people having been put to death by the nasty atheists?? If atheists had no morals, they would all be locked up and/or executed, and the religious out there know this, because if that was the case you'd be roaming the streets in mobs with burning torches looking to lynch the nearest devil worshipper or person that doesn't agree with their particular god fantasy.

There *are* countries like that, maybe you religious fantastics should move there?

If atheists had no morals they would be classified as a separate race seeing how they would roam the streets in packs and live off the flesh of the weak and vulnerable in the very mobs that are trying to lynch them. So given that atheists don't roam the streets in packs, it would be safe to say that atheists *do* have morals - they just don't get them from atheism! at this point I would like to say,

"Grow the fuck up if you think atheists have no morals!"

so - exactly - which part of the absence of belief in religious and godly stuff - **EXACTLY** - is to blame for the genocidal fruit cakes over the last hundred years or so that seem to have had this label put on them called "atheist" because they showed one tiny trait out of many that may have implied that they were atheists?


atheism has no morals attached to it, but that doesn't make atheists immoral, atheists get their morals from interaction with the world. You know, by experiencing the world, talking, and more importantly, listening to other people's points of view instead of demanding that everyone else comply with their particular religiodiculous set of rules from a time when people really did need to be told how to behave.

Maybe that's how the religiously endowed people can justify their violence? "Oh it's OK! relax! I'm allowed to attack you, I'm with Jesus!"

And you know, many religious people seem to have some quite questionable and even outright disgusting "morals", so having "religion" has nothing to do with being a moral person in the first place.

There are *MANY* stories in the news of late where people are, for instance, letting their kids get sick and die because they think god will make them better, and if god doesn't make them better, then that's OK too, because it's what god wanted. What about the guy who kept the corpse of some old woman in a toilet because he thought god would bring her back to life?

Atheism has *nothing* attached to it what-so-ever, it is defined (or is that undefined?) by there being a *lack* of attachments, but if there is anything that would seem to be attached to atheism, it's people's misconceptions, assumptions, and misinformed opinions.

The stout religious person would insist that atheists have no morals at all, but they *know* that's not true, and yet they still say atheists are immoral.

Has anyone actually blown up a building in the name of atheism like the christian abortion clinic bombers do? Has anybody ever hijacked a plane claiming it in the name of atheism like Islamic terrorists have been known to do? has anyone invaded a country and slaughtered whole cities of people in the name of atheism like the christians did during the crusades?? Has anyone ever kept the corpse of a dead woman locked up in a toilet because they thought having a lack of belief would be rewarded by the woman being revived?

well, have they?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Questions? Comments?

the religious should not read these blogs, they *will* be offended

these are my rantings about religion - i speak fluent sarcasm - know this when you are reading and it will save you some heartache.