No, it doesn't. But it doesn't cause it. They were also vodka drinkers, and wore fur hats...
Still atheist. Still publishing The Militant Godless. Still mocking religion.
No, it doesn't. But it doesn't cause it. They were also vodka drinkers, and wore fur hats...
Still atheist. Still publishing The Militant Godless. Still mocking religion.
Your painting of atheists with one brush is the same as others' incorrect painting of theists with one brush. Why continue a concept you already know to be wrong from personal experience?
I'm just pointing out that atheism does not mean lack of religious extremism, in fact, it has been shown to be much worse.:shrug:
Really where?
Here comes a stalin was an atheist remark
Anywhere where atheists assume a position of power. In academia for instance.
I'm just pointing out that atheism does not mean lack of religious extremism, in fact, it has been shown to be much worse.:shrug:
Do you have an exmaple?
Extremism, sure. Not sure if you could call it religious extremism though, but that's just semantics. Either way, spidergoat already agreed with your point in his earlier post. I don't think anyone reasonably intelligent would claim there are no atheist extremists. But that's different from blaming atrocities committed by atheists solely on the concept of atheism (what you're doing), which is more in line with the nowadays common BS of doing with same with Islam.
Sure anyone who shows that they are religious in atheist prominent academia get off the tenure track.
So .....no.
My old university, Oxford, which was founded by monks, friars and theologians nine centuries ago, was until recently regarded as a bastion of old-fashioned Christianity and, as such, was called "the house of lost causes." Today a publicly expressed belief in Christianity is likely to lower your chance of landing a job at Oxford.
Religion has become a handicap in university life, especially in certain subjects. In philosophy, for example, academics who hope for senior chairs keep mum about any faith they hold. God and promotion do not mix. And in all the sciences, young men and women with religious backgrounds are advised to jettison their Christian, Jewish or other religious baggage if they want to pursue careers in physics, chemistry or biology. The universal assumption seems to be that a belief in God fatally debars a scholar from acquiring scientific knowledge. In Britain the number of students concentrating in the sciences is on the decline, and the systematic discouragement of Christians and Jews in the science faculties will clearly increase that trend.
:shrug:Yeah you guys are all right. We should shut down the evil hospices.
*************You beat me to it. There are good reasons to believe that Mother Theresa was not all she was cracked up to be. She "helped" people according to her Catholic beliefs. A documentary on her which included interviews, suggested that she was less interested in alleviating sufering than helping people into the kingdom of heaven.
Referring to high infant mortality rates, she happily suggested that it was not a bad thing because it meant more souls for God.
When my time comes I'll settle for a fellow-atheist to help me on my way.
:shrug:
Agreed. We should replace that organization with one that will use charity money to help people, instead of hording it.
:shrug:
:shrug:
Religion is a handicap to education.
My old university, Oxford, which was founded by monks, friars and theologians nine centuries ago, was until recently regarded as a bastion of old-fashioned Christianity and, as such, was called "the house of lost causes."
Yes you are. The reason everyone gives them money is that the public perception is that they're a worthwhile charity, when clearly they are not. Your rigorous defense of them is the kind of thing which contributes to that perception.I'm not stopping you. :shrug:
How many ways would you like me to demonstrate it?Yeah, I totally see that.
Yes you are. The reason everyone gives them money is that the public perception is that they're a worthwhile charity, when clearly they are not. Your rigorous defense of them is the kind of thing which contributes to that perception.
How many ways would you like me to demonstrate it?
There are already tons of better alternatives. Red Cross, WHO, and many smaller organizations.As soon as you provide a better alternative, you can rake in the moolah