alright im 15years old im an atheist... i have nothing against religion my entire family is religious.. i dont believe in god.. im overall a really nice person.. i love my friends family... am i evil because of that? dont be too quick to judge everyone... :p
Hunterkirk , every single time an atheist mentioned that they were not in any way denying the possibility for the existence of some sort of god you purposely avoided this fact by parroting a dictionary definition of atheism. They all seamed to honestly say that they were totally willing to believe, given some verifiable objective facts. I am curious though, is your mind still open enough to at least consider the possibility that you’re your god is just a man created unfalsifiable concept?
@claudbase I "parrot" the dictionary because many athiest seem to mix up agnostic with atheist. The title Atheist much like the title Theist have a foundational element of a conclusion on the matter of God. As a theist I have no question in my mind about God. Likewise as a atheist you have no question in your mind about God. The only group that is truly open are the agnostics who admit they don't have a clue about the issue. You may be a atheist with agnostic tendencies.
@Hunterkirk You must then realize that, according to your definition, the vast majority of the atheist that exchange on the internet are what you call agnostic atheist since they are clearly saying that they don’t know for sure that their is no god, they simply reject the concept base on the lack of evidence. So did'nt you basically just admitted that the majority of these “dangerous” atheists on the Internet are actually more open than you when it comes to the concept of god?
@claudbase It isn't "my definition" if you have a problem with the definition take it up with the dictionary. As for the majority of Atheist being "agnostic atheist" that is fine with me. It is impossible to discuss any issue unless you are speaking the same language and that requires commonly understood definitions.
Theism and "tolerance" - let's talk about this movement in the world, or, as they're often described, anti-everyone else, a secular society. Militant theists like to claim they're not dangerous, clearly they're united by common beliefs, beliefs they hold on faith because they can neither prove nor disprove their position and they're not open to the possibility that there may not be a god. Shit, do I need to go on? Look, my point is that by simply removing the a from atheist... Over to you...
And that was why I created this video because a atheist did just that with his video and this was video response he did not permit. In fact he went further then I ever did as he claim ALL theists to be dangerous while I am specifically talking only about atheist who seek the destruction of religion. The title of the other fellows video was "Theist are dangerous" and your atheist buddies LOVED it and praised it. Yet as you pointed out when the counter claim is made they hate it.
While I am not american, atheists are concerned with similar problems in my country. I care little myself about random crosses on old monuments, but I do care if a political figure claims a god is giving him instructions. Would you be happy if a politican said Zeus told him to enact a law. In countries with low Christian populations, the Church seeks secular laws to protect itself from dominant alternative religions, in high christian states, they want no secular restrictions. hypocrites.
If thats true then... he wouldn't be in office because people would not vote for him.
Aslong as the guy isn't giving the church powers to take over the government... thats fine.
As a theists I believe the church should not be allowed within government... because they are two different things. But a person should never be scard to say that they are a theist.
There is christian communism. Communism is a sociopolitical system, not a faith based one. The corrupted forms of it under Stalin (for example) did not remove religion because of a lack of belief in a god, they did it to grab power held by the church. Since the people would only support this action they spewed propaganda about religion, just like ALL corrupt governments use propaganda.
Atheism is not about punishing religious people. It is simply a rejection of god claims made by believers.
@AMomentOfClarity2011 "Atheism is not about punishing religious people. It is simply a rejection of god claims made by believers." and yet atheist have killed millions and attacked the religious across the world. Propaganda that used atheism to excuse these actions succeeded because of a violent side of some atheists. With out that element no amount of propaganda would have resulted in those murders in then name of anti theism.
Christians are quite powerful in politics the extremely religious is dangerous as they try and force their belief system on others. Any extreme group is dangerous to a community if they get to much power. The US is having a problem extremist groups control the two main parties. Most of us fall some where between the two extremes and are the root of the problem......See most people in the middle don't vote and have allowed nuts to take control.
@Xatasha6611 I would say Christian are largely moderates. Liberals and atheist tend to be the extremist. As is evidence you are far more likely to get hurt is a liberal protest then a Christian conservative one. More over the property damage of liberal groups in protest out strips any of the Christians by the factor of thousands if not millions. Most liberals are secularists and most atheists love secularism as it denies the religious representation in their government.
You can't generalise and go on to say that every atheist is part of some conspiracy, that's just absurd... we all have to right to determine what religious path we chose or weather we chose a religion at all... we haven't got the right to call people out as being dangerous just because their atheists, my family are atheist and my Mum's best friend is a strong christian, what it comes down to is weather or not your a good person, religious belief shouldn't effect that...
@designkid5555 Clearly you never watched the video. In the very first statement I defined the group I was talking about and it was not ALL Atheists. Seeing that you never watched the video I see little reason to further explain it until you do watch it.
@designkid5555 Considering this was a response to video entitled Theist are dangerous I see no problem with the title. In fact the video it was a response to claimed ALL theist to be dangerous.
Do you realize how hard it is to get an atheist into office? VERY FUCKING HARD! The only way is to eliminate theism in politics so as not to put one religion ofer any others.
@SGTSlashRazor I would argue it is very easy to get Atheists in the office. In fact I would argue that many if not the majority of the Politicians in office now are in fact atheist. They only pretend to be religious to get the religious vote but once in office they prove to be atheist in their activities and in any way that matters. In fact many secularist American's are in fact atheist and many liberal churches are basically atheist social club as they do little that is God based.
@Hunterkirk okay so if its so easy to be an atheist and be in office why dont they just say they are atheist instead lying. you said it is easy so why not just say it? you think america will vote for an atheist whos not lying about who he really is?
@BEARARMZ Good question and the answer is fairly easy. Political persons always try to look like the people that are voting for them. In a country in which the majority of the population is Christian than majority of those who run for office will pose as Christian. The perception is that this is because Christians would not vote for a atheist while that is in fact untrue few want to test it. The Democrat party is largely the Atheist party and in outright anti Christian when given a chance.
so what u r saying is every body that dose not think the same way u do that dont beleve in religon that they are nazi's and have you ever quesiond the bible?
@Honyi1 Nope. I am saying that Non-Christians who seek the elimination of religion have manifested this desire on a form of government called communism and under the banner of those states have killed millions of religious persons. Yes I have questioned the Bible and studied its history and it is for those reasons I am strongly Christian. I feel the evidence to support the Bible and the claims made with in it are historically VERY strong. Are you rejecting it because of personal desires?
Lastly, since "Atheists are dangerous", ) are religions other than yours dangerous if they want to impose a religious government in the USA? I am thinking you would answer yes, because you would not want to live in a muslim state, jewish state, hindu state, etc because it conflicts with your religion.... . Then why is your own religion any different? Isn't it equally dangerous, or at least undesirable, as any other religion? What is the difference?
@kotsoven Basically any ideology, belief or faith can be dangerous... atheism and religion includes (as well as secularism). It is a question on exactly how far you take it. In a representative government it assumes it represents the population it controls. If the majority are of faith then one should expect that to be reflected in the laws. If the majority are secularist the same should be true. Everyone believes the views of others they disagree with are dangerous to one degree or another.
However, I agree with you that not every atheist would settle for a pure secular state. Those are people that (pick 1: lower/raise) atheism to some sort of state religion. Hence, no secular state anymore, and i do not support those views, and I disagree with them just as strongly as I would disagree with someone who defends some form of religious government. Politics is (or should be) for ALL the people, based on democracy. Religion (or lack thereof) is not!
As an atheist i dislike all religions, however, i respect all opinions, even though some frustrate me or just make me pity the holders of those opinions. I strongly believe that state and religion should be separated, after all, what has religion to do with politics? This also mean that "atheist" views should also not affect politics. Communism and fascism are not examples of secular societies, since persecuting people based on religious beliefs is de facto not secular.
anti christ is way different than athiesm im so called athiest i believe you can believe in what ever the fuck you want, i have no anger what so ever on christians i even tried going to church i just cant believe in something so farfetched.
@MrVolt11 Good for you then this video is not about you. If you watched it I made it clear from the starting statement that I was not referring to ALL atheists just to a select group and I went on to define what that group was. If you don't fit the definition given then the video has nothing to do with you..
@Renturd I disagree. What I refer to is a representative Democracy. Government should represent the values of its people and if the majority are atheist then so be it. In America the majority are Christian and to say that their beliefs are not allowed to effect the country they live in is oppressive.
Holy shit (pun intended), you couldn't be farther from the truth. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I never met an atheist who didn't believe in the freedom of speech. We, simply don't want you to interfere with our lives, you can believe whatever you want. I don't recall there ever being a group of atheists killing people for what they believe in. Check your bible, there's a lot of murder in that book. Atheism in government? What the fuck country are you from?
@nomedsdog Then you must not have meet the following atheist groups: American Atheists com, Infidels org, Secular org, Freedom From Religion Foundation, David Silverman, Boulder Atheists org, atheistunderworld com, michiganatheists org, godlessgeeks com, thinkatheist com, cocore org, msatheists org, American Atheists, Inc., atheistsofflorida org, anamericanatheist org, rationalists org, atheistempire com, atheistsforhumanrights org... and many more including many atheist posters here.
And Atheism can not be used as a weapon that gives power to bullies, ala Satlin, Hồ Chí Minh? I will agree that religion can be used to forward abusive activities. Yet I think atheism can also be used in the same way. In fact I think the problem isn't really Religion or Atheism but is fanatics and power hungry people. These people will use anything to gain power including environmentalism, social justice, civil rights, and so on. What I think you miss is that many good people are religious.
@Hunterkirk Stalin and Ho Chi Minh may have been atheists, but they couldn't use that as a "divine message". There lies the difference. Religion can be used to threaten someone in the afterlife (ala Hell), that is why it can be such a powerful weapon. This is how Warren Jeffs was able to get young girls to have sex with him. He threatened that they would "go to hell" if they didn't.
Instead they use "Reason", "Evolution", "Science", "Greater Good" and so on to justify their mass murders of millions. Again people who desire power will use what ever is at hand to get it. Should their be ill feelings toward religion they will use atheism and "science" and "reason" to justify killing off the religious if it will in the end give them the power they want. Likewise religion has been used for the same twisted power goals. Again it is the fanatics not the ideals that is dangerous.
@Hunterkirk Again I disagree. "Faith" by definition is the absence of reason and logic. "Believers" can be coerced to do bad things in the name of Faith without a counter balance of reason and evidence.
Faith exists outside of religion. Reason is not a universal truth. Reason is based largely on personal bias and cultural teaching. One cultures reason will differ from an other just as much as the reason and logic of one person will differ from any other persons logic and reason. You have faith in Logic and Reason. As a atheist those are your Gods, but you never really bother to look at Logic & Reason in a Analytical way. Instead you name your wishes & thoughts as being Logical and Reasonable.
"Having a say in public" is a far cry from actually modifying the laws of the country to suit your religion that I have plenty of reason to not believe is even remotely real. Your desire to make laws based on what I see as a book of magical fairy tales is where I think militant atheism is perfectly logical and will help us not destroy ourselves to achieve some afterlife.
@alphaenemy So religious people show not in any way influence the country that rules over them? Have is that not a dictatorship of atheist Secularists? If the only rules that are allow are the Atheist and Secular ones how is that not oppression and dictatorship? Even more so since the Secularist and Atheists are the minority. Minority rule is part of a basic definition of a dictatorship. As to what you believe I really don't care and that isn't the point.
O my, I think you need to get to know some other atheists then the few you talk to on youtube here. And btw, almost no atheists are DENYING God, im open to it, but that doesnt mean I will accept it BEFORE evidence is presented. And thats what is pissing most atheists off, that we are somehow not "open" to it, because we are skeptical towards it and demands evidence.
Atheists as a group in the US tend to be decently educated (naturally there are exceptions), and as a result most are supporters of government transparency and standards of our government outlined in any introductory political science course. However, when religion infringes on the rights of others for reasons that are illogical and only motivated by said religion (i.e. gay marriage, stem cell research, first trimester fetuses have "souls", etc.) it's unacceptable.
@jackalinnahat Your are making a lot of generalization and unsupported claims here. I would need to see your supporting information and examine the studies you feel support your claims before making a comment.
Wasn't the Norway terrorist a Christian?I consider a group of people who believe they are not held accountable for their actions merely because it is the will of their vengeful god to be be very dangerous. Athiests and agnostics however tend to act on logic and personal belief, not some book written 1600 years ago.
"Wasn't the Norway terrorist a Christian?" Nope. He was a Atheist. What is confusing you is that he was strongly anti Islamic and strongly the tradition Judia-Christian European Culture, but in his writings he clearly states many times over that he himself didn't believe in God. I understand the media and certain people have been trying to sell him as a Christian terrorist but that is simply a lie. In fact his writing were VERY logical although his conclusions I think as deeply flawed.
@Hunterkirk "Wasn't the Norway terrorist a Christian?" "Nope. He was a Atheist" He was in fact a fundamentalist Christian, he described himself on Facebook as Christian and was even a member of The Knights Templar Europe. Maybe you should check your facts before spouting out bullshit?
Examine the article "Norway Shooting Horror: Killer's Manifesto Denies True Faith in Christ". He writes on page 1307 of his online manifesto:
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”
@cokeindew Another problem is that you wrongly assume logic to be constant. What you forget is logic is based not only on personal bias but also on assumed facts. For example if you assume that humans are put in to race classes and that in the end only one of the races can win survive due to evolution then the logic of the Nazi's and other race based radical movement become clear and reasonable. The facts and assumptions the individual has makes their logic largely individual.
im atheist. i truly hate religion, i hate the nazis more than religion . im dangerous because im a good fighter not because of my beleifs but because i dont like alot of people. whats the world without violence? over-population, leading to death. Finally, if there is a god give me proof.
@djlocman3 Yes I have heard from those environmentalist that the world is over populated and I have heard for there dreams that billions of people die off to save "mother Earth". You may have a chance with Christians as there are a good many who are in to non-violence. With Islam well you will have to deal with a religion build on violence and number in the billions. I wonder if they be as kind a majority as Christianity has been?
A militant atheist that seeks to destroy religion? Why you've described me to a T. Soon we will be the majority and will simply ensure your children are educated enough to understand your full of shit. We won't physically destroy you, just out breed you. Your just a bad weed in the lawn of humanity
@MsLookitsme123 religion/philosophy what is the effective difference when is come to interacting with the world around you? I see none. Except perhaps that atheism in the purest sense is simply the belief that something is not so, BUT in denying this they have the cast aside the many moral and social rules it presents. Result is they have to create or find philosophy that covers the missing moral and social rules. To do that they have to embrace illogical assumptions base on whims.
@dav1d908 I understand that I am force to tell the story behind the title time and time again, but for you I will repeat myself. This video was a counter to a video that claimed ALL religious people were dangerous. The owner of that video refuse to post my counter. So I labeled it the same way he labeled his. On my part I made it clear that I was not referring to all atheist while he made it clear he was referring to all theists.
@TraceurAlec I have read the Bible from front to back a number of times and that is why I am a Christian and not a Atheist. So for the bigoted hatemongering website you direct me to it is at best uninformed about the Bible worse it is pure slander and hate. Thanks for your hateful input.
Not all of us are dangerous. To us, there is nothing after death, most won't just go kill theists, because we don't want to end their one and only life. I love all religions.
@Hunterkirk Yes, I agree with one of the other commentators on this bar. You are wrong on many points in this video. (1) For starters, someone said that you were saying that all atheists were dangerous, and you said that you didn't say that in any way, shape, or form. For one thing, the title of your video is misleading because it's saying that ALL atheists are danger to society and not just the ones that follow this trend of "militant atheism" as so many would call it.
@GentlemanThunder7 "For one thing, the title of your video is misleading because it's saying that ALL atheists are danger to society" And you didn't read my response to him which explained in detail the reason for the title. Also note the very first statement of the video corrects this.
@Hunterkirk You've transformed this from an argument against militant atheism to an argument about secularlism and its supporters, including those that are religious, but don't want government to impose the general views of their religion upon the society. In your response, there are several holes in your reasoning. (1) You're trying to make it seem as if secularlist or secularlism in general is trying to impede the equal representation of Christians in the country, which is certainly not true.
@GentlemanThunder7 No you brought in Secularism and YES the Secularist ARE trying to impede equal representation of Christians in the country. At the fore front of this effort are the ACLU and many "Separation Between Church and State" groups. (PS: Please try to keep your post to a single or at most 2 posts... if you want a longer discussion message me. I generally have a rule against multi posting on my forum)
@Hunterkirk There are several holes in your reasoning of your response. Before I say anything though, I'd like to point out that you've turned this argument from a statement against militant atheism into an argument about secularlism in general. That's you really focus on in your response, and I can talk about your statements in the following way: (1) What you're saying here, from what I understand, is that religious people are somehow being denied representation from secularlist in government.
@Hunterkirk (1, cont.) The question is, how? How would people somehow be able to deny representation of religious people on the floor of government when, the last time I checked, we still live under a representational government that allows for free and fair elections to pick the leaders to represent our goals in the government. After all, we still have conservatives in the government that wish to uphold religious values, and these people are representations of the people that elected them.
@GentlemanThunder7 Easy they use the redefined argument of "Separation Between Church and State" to have any representation of religion in either law or in the public forum be banded by liberal judges. They have taken this so far as to keep Churches from meeting in public buildings when they allow other groups to do so and keep schools from renting Church buildings for large gatherings when schools are allowed to rent no religious buildings for the same functions.
@Hunterkirk (1, cont.) After all, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is a representative of the people. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is a representative of the people. There are other conservatives as well who are representatives of the people, and they show the ideologies of the people that elected them. Plus, it'd be pretty unrealistic to believe that the representatives of these people would bow down to any anti-religious ideologies when they count on the vote of the people they represent.
@GentlemanThunder7 Yes and if they show faith they are attacked for it by the liberal media. In fact in any debate held by the "mainstream" liberal media of Republicans they also include questions linked to faith in the hopes to try to caste the Republican as some kinda religious nut (it always fails to have impact on Conservatives and most moderates as they respect Religion. Liberals generally don't respect religion hence most Atheists who are political are liberal democrats.)
@Hunterkirk (1, cont.) People are not going to vote for someone who doesn't pose to be what their interests are, so this image that you paint about people in government bowing down to secular ideologies may be just their bowing down to the ideologies of the people. Otherwise, they don't get elected, do they? (2) You also pull up the image of secularlism in general and directly connotate it to being part of liberalism.
@GentlemanThunder7 Yes and that is why the secularist have created the idea of "Separation Between Church and State" and have defined it that at no time will the morals and beliefs of the religious be allowed to be represented in the public forum or in the laws of the nation. Something that if you study history you will find only occurred around the time President Wilson and his liberal progressive government. The first congress even printed a large number of Bibles.
@Hunterkirk (2, cont.) As far as that's concerned, it's not a question about liberal or conservative anymore. It's a question about constitutionality, morality, and what's acceptable for America. After all, there are conservatives who aren't that keen on religion based on the states they represent. Just look at Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who have more socially liberal policies. Then, of course, there's the First Amendment.
@Hunterkirk (2, cont.) Yes, we're a country that embraces the idea that government should work for the people, but at the end of the day, it has to correlate with the American Constitution, which is the law of the land. Our First Amendment rights states that we have freedom of/from religion, and as far as government is concerned, religion should have no place in the decisions of government.
@GentlemanThunder7 NO... Only liberals and mistaken moderates think that the "Government should work for the people". For Conservatives and right thinking moderates they understand that the government is a needed evil and the less of it we can have the better. That the "Safety Nets" have become dependency spider webs design to ensure Democrat election victories. The Constitutional role of government is largely to keep the peace and protect the nation from foreign threat NOTHING MORE.
@Hunterkirk (2, cont.) And just because a policy with a religious ideology doesn't get passed (which have before), that doesn't mean that people aren't getting an equal say in government. It means that the people of government are trying to uphold the Constitution and the people who elect them have a secular view, so they have a stronger influence in government. Like you said, democracy means for the people, and it's the majority of people supporting something and it's constitutional, it goes.
@Hunterkirk (2, cont.) Then, beyond the idea of democracy and constitutionality is the question of morality. We are an eclectic nation composed of, not only atheists, but Jews, Muslims, agnostics, pagans, and so forth. By placing a religious doctrine as the centerpiece for government, sure, we'd be supporting the majority of people, but we'd be imposing a doctrine against people of other faiths in the country. Would it be moral for someone to margnilize another religion for Christianity?
@GentlemanThunder7 Are you claiming that if you allowed religious representation (which we largely don't today) that there would be theocracy? You forget that the population of the USA at its founding was near 100% Christian and this didn't happen. It is only bigotry that would led some one to make such a claim. The Christian faith isn't designed to run governments and if you knew anything about it you would understand that. All it does is set forth moral code and not government laws.
@Hunterkirk (3) Before bringing this to a question about secularlism, however, you said something that was just downright offensive: the people that don't want government to impose its views on society are just self-hating. That's nothing more than an ad hominem attack. What's more is that you said that many "regular atheists" just don't care about any of these topics. How do you prove that? Where does that come from? So, with your statement about self-hatred, that's a logical fallacy.
Easy for liberals liberalism has always trumped their religions. It is the liberals that are largely the Secularist movement. That is why Liberal Jews can support Muslims who are calling to kill all Israeli Jews. Liberal Christianity is largely just liberal meeting places with the dressings of religion on them. Proof is that should the Bible (the only text by which we Christians have any understand of God) conflict with the liberal position the liberal christian will side with liberalism.
NO... I go on and on with REPRESENTATION. For a government to be representative it must represent its people. When you look at nearly any poll on if the people feel represented in the USA by their government (namely policies and practices) you will find that never does it cross 50%. What we in truth have is a country run by organizations and activist groups and media groups along with a handful of powerful companies that use the government to protect their wealth and companies.
@Hunterkirk (1, cont.) For another thing, in the beginning of your video, you were commentating on what militant atheism is and what you said was not only anti-Christianity, but also included people who were in support of separation of church and state. There is where you made a mistake because "militant atheists" are not the only ones who support this, but also "regular atheists" and even believers of faith are respectful of secularism in the country. Maybe you just made a mistake or something.
You are trying to claim ALL "regular atheists" support the complete "separation of church and state" as currently defined as the religious not in any way shape or form influencing the government that rules over them. So you are in fact making a gross over generalization. Many "regular atheists" just don't care about the topics being discussed at all. And yes there are self hating religious people who feel that their faith should not be allowed representation in a representational government.
@Hunterkirk (2) Then, there's your point about how atheists are somehow running the country. That's completely untrue. Could you please name even 1 atheist who is running the country at the present time period? How are atheists running the country? (3) Also, as far as democracy is concerned, if this bunch of atheists are only representing a small group of people and whatnot, why are they still even being elected? Therein lies a huge paradox.
@GentlemanThunder7 (2) again you are wrong, the fact that you have religious people bowing to the control of the Atheist (liberal) Secularist control of the state in which ONLY secularist views are allowed representation is in fact ONLY supportive of Atheistic goals. (3) No Paradox at all there are many religious groups that have bought the secularists line and thus are self silencing and in fact turn on their fellow theist should they dare to want to be represented by their government.
@Hunterkirk (3, cont.) Also, while you talk about democracy, please be aware that we live in a representative democracy where the people indirectly affect the government. A lot of people may support something, but that doesn't necessarily mean that government will do it nor does it mean that it will be good for the society. (4) Then, of course, you pull up communism and fascism. Who says that the dictators that these economic systems represented were doing murders because of their atheism?
(3) Yes a REPRESENTATIVE Government that "Seperation between Church and State"-ers would deny the REPRESENTING of the religious. Also a government that does not represent the wishes of the majority ISN'T (by definition) REPRESENTATIVE.
(4) It is a FACT that the Communist leadership has and remains Atheists to a man. The fact that they oppress the religious for stated reason not titled "atheist" does not change the conflicts nature. Racists seldom oppress based on race they make other claims like "Oh it is full now, or You would not fit in." Likewise the Atheist rulers of Communist states kill and oppress not because they are atheist but because the religious are dangerous - a comment repeated by your fellow atheists.
You are right in a sense. I am a militant atheist and I am out to destroy whatever bullshit exsists. No matter how you package it. Religion is bullshit and bullshit only adds to more bullshit. Fascism by the way was a religious group. Communism was an atheistic movement however most atheists such as myself are not communists. Communism proved itself to be a bullshit theory. The religious zealots of Russia are the one most likely to want communism back.
Only the elimination of all conservative Christians will allow all Americans to be free and the world to no longer have to live in fear of the U.S.A.'s imperialist, terrorist holy war. The conservative ideology has never helped mankind in any way, it has not only never helped mankind in anyway, it has oppressed, murdered, raped and killed all those in it's way to gain power. History shows us this. Fact shows us this.
Hasen't religion proven to be more militant than Atheism? I mean when was the last time you heard of an Atheist strapping a bomb on himself and walking into a market. Or when did the last "Atheist Crusade" march its way through Europe killing, raping, maiming, and stealing.
@theevilmeister "when did the last "Atheist Crusade" march its way through killing, raping, maiming, and stealing." In Communist China, Vietnam, and in North Korea. Far more recent then the Crusades.
@Hunterkirk Try thinking a little bit. The Crusades were done "in the name of God". The oppressive leaders of the nations you named have not done their evil deeds in the name of atheism. Don't lump us with dictators. And we don't hate religious people, we hate it when religious people cram their beliefs down peoples' throats.
@Littlegraycells28 Good advice you should try to think. Why did these communists and socialists target the religious for extermination? Could it be because they were religious and these communist where atheists? Could it be that they hated these religious people and as cpmondello side they thought the world can only become perfect by the extermination of religion?
@theevilmeister Hitler was a catholic,but he soon discovered Darwin's work and impeded that it was his job to help evolution.Foolish thoughts and ramblings of uneducated guess work does not help your cause.Look into the number of criminals converted to religion in prison,why would they be converted if they had religion in the first place?What about Marx?Did you consider these things before you spoke?Show me proof im wrong.
@theevilmeister Commuism is a religion. Atheism was a way to get power away from the pulpit. Its very purpose was to supress all free speech, including religions speech. American atheism is not militant. We don't want to take away your right to worship whatever or however you please. We just want you to see the truth. There is no God or gods in existance. We don't need them. We simply wish that you would reach this same conclusion on your own. By the way, Hitler was Catholic.
@RyanTheTruthSeeker The open discussion of is God real or not is one thing but the active silencing of the religious is another. The Atheist Communist in the USSR, North Korea, China, Vietnam, and others looked to silence the religious (by killing them in many cases) because they were loyal to their faith and not the Human State government. Hitler may have called himself Catholic but many other leaders in the Nazi movement called themselves atheists.
@formless777 Interestingly the act of them being Tax free has largely been the reason why Religious Institutes have NOT been more involved in politics. In fact should they openly support a person for office they risk loosing their tax free status. Should they pay taxes then they can put any amount of money they wish behind people for public office. You know they are like the Unions in the fact that they can put a lot of feet on the ground.
You make a very reasonable point. However I don't think they can put as many feet on the ground as you or they think they can. Better yet, I am certain that if they did form political parties it would be tantamount to supporting abortions, because thats what the parties would be.
You have to consider another side effect of tax exemption for churches. All communities have disagreements and this is also true for Christianity. As a result there are countless denominations in the USA. The Tax exempt status makes creation of a small church or denomination possible, as they can afford it easier. Now lets say you tax them, that forces the religious to organize in to larger and larger groups to afford the taxes. This mean more concentration of the religious groups.
Well, you only make a partial point. You have suggested that the Christians are currently fractured. Do you really think they have it within them to agree on a common dogma ? Currently they have undue influence over politics. If they were allowed to form their own political party, they would merely split the vote and shake up the major parties. That might actually be a good thing.
Any group that feels like they are being targeted will soon forget their differences and join together to counter what they believe is their foe. There are enough commonly agreed upon beliefs in Christianity to unit them in the face of a foe which seeks to end their influence on society. The liberal Christians who are likely to agree with those seeking to end religious influence would either abandon their Christian faith to join with those who seek to destroy it or more embrace their faith.
Pardon me, but I happen to be atheist. I am not out to destroy religion, I am not hateful towards christians or any theists for that matter, and i certainly do not want to strip you of free speech. But how dare you be no narrow minded as to imply, nay, support the concept that state should not be separated from church? What gives you the right to superimpose your religion in any public setting?
@PartiallyLogical I don't seem to recall saying ALL atheist were out to destroy religion, but if your goal is to create a society in which religion has no influence at all in the culture, society, morals, and laws then you are indeed seeking to destroy religion.
If your concern is only militant atheism, you should change your title.
No argument against atheism is made in this case. Anyone militant is inherently dangerous. Militant Christians are dangerous, but that doesn't reflect on Christianity. An argument appealing to a group's violence only stands against the militant, not any arbitrary group that may contain militants.
Also, embracing separation of church and state is not destroying religion. It's protecting us from it.
@thefrozenmercury Again this video was a counter to a video a Atheist had made by the Tile "Theist are Dangerous". Predictably they would not accept this counter video so I set it up solo. My video at the very start stated a certain element with in the atheist community is dangerous. In their video they claimed ALL theists were dangerous.
really ?? you have got to be kidding me !!! more than 80% of war was due to religion of some type and the greed for power that pursues it and how it has harboured dangerous people from the law i,e child molesters, murderers and any other scum bag it has protected all religions are dangerous brain washing killing people in the name of god wtf is that, oh man I hope you're being funny.
@awabast "really ?? you have got to be kidding me !!! more than 80% of war was due to religion of some type'
Really?? Are you just stupid or just blinded by you bigotry against religion? Do some REAL studying and you will notice the VAST majority of war were secular based. Let me give you a list of a few of them... French Revolution, American Revolution, Civil War, Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2, Vietnam War, Korean War, Indian Wars, and Many Many more....
@kingtut521 You mean like the Secular Trojan Wars, Roman Military Expansions, The Huns Military Wars, The Hawaii inter tribe Wars, the countless native American Wars, The countless Tribal Wars in Africa-India-Europe-etc, The Gothic Migration Wars, The Saxon Migration Wars... Seem to me Secular reasons are 90% of the wars of history and have kill many times over the amounts of ANY of the religious wars.
"Hateful, bigoted, narrow minded, violent in the end." Sounds like he's describing Christianity. And FYI, bud, there are plenty of socialist countries in the world that don't try and kill religious people. Sweden, Denmark, Canada (where I'm from), blah blah blah. Not only is pulling the Socialist card a weak argument, it also makes you look very intolerant of a governmental system different than your own.
@MrBCRMBST FYI, bud, there are plenty of religious countries in the world that don't try and kill because of religion. Italy, Britian, USA (where I'm from), blah blah blah. Not only is pulling the Religious card a weak argument, it also makes you look very intolerant of a governmental system different than your own.
@localphenom Sorry we don't worship man (man created evil). But you atheist worship man and nature. In many ways you are like the druids of the old pagan faiths.
@Hunterkirk Atheists do not worship... Please do years of research about the word "WORSHIP" while you are observing Atheist behavior... Oh! Silly me, I'm telling a Theist to do a research?! WTF!! I really need to rest my mind... I deeply apologize for that bro! Well, do it your way... Please pray to your God that he will give you a full understanding of the word "WORSHIP" and I know you will because your God is always there right?... ^_^
Worship = adoring reverence or regard (one of three meanings of worship)
With out question if you think the end all and be all is creation then you are in fact worshipers of it, even if you don't believe it to be a sentient God. How many times have liberal environmentalist said "Mother Earth"?
@plutowasaplanet01 So I guess we would have to put all Secular wars kill counts in the Atheist camps... let use see that would be WW1 and 2, The American Civil War and Revolutionary Wars, War 1812 Vietnam War, Korean War.... If you think you can get a high kill count on the Religious conflicts then all those wars combine you are welcome to try.
Religious people not being allowed to have their say!!?? How many openly self-proclaimed atheists do you come across in the political debates and forums in the US? And yes, I do believe that the scriptures of the abrahamic religions are equally immoral and disgusting to the ideology of Hitler (who was a roman catholic by the way) and his socialist nationalist party.
@TheHmmhmm You mean the Nazi Party which planed to destroy Christianity and install a Nazi Church based roughly on the only Norse Gods and German legends... that Catholic.
"How many openly self-proclaimed atheists do you come across in the political debates and forums in the US?"
You mean those political people who claim to be Christians? I don't think there are more then 10 Christian Democrats in office. Bill Mahyr said he thought Obama was a atheist.
@Hunterkirk Read up on it. The roman catholic church did much more than just stand by and watch what was going on.
Well, yes, I am too believing and hoping that Obama is an atheist... But you see no problem in the fact that people can't be open about their "lack of faith" in fear of not being allowed into that forum?
I am sure they did, but you are acting like the Nazi's were a puppet of the Catholic Church when clearly that was not the case. In fact they required all ministers in Germany to be members of the Nazi party. Many of the Nazi leadership at the highest levels were atheists and another was pagan.
You admit that Obama may be a atheist pretending to be a Christian yet you deny the possibility that the Nazis were not Christian but simply used the Religion as a tool to forward a National Socialism.
@Hunterkirk The nazi-party were definatly not puppets of the catholic church, I agree, it was rather the other way around. None of us (or anyone else for that matter) can prove if Hitler, Goebles, Himmler, etc were "true believers" or merely "faking faith" as a tool of winning support from other believers (especially considering that anti-semitism was WIDELY spread within the catholic churches and yes, also among secular people too during the early 1900's).
My point is you seem insistent on pushing the idea that the Nazis were Christians yet you admit that they were using the Church as a puppet to forward a political movements goal... a political movement that had no real connection of friendship to Christianity as many of the leadership of the Nazi party plotted for the day they would change the Christian Churches in Germany into Nazi Churches with Hitler's book replacing the Bible.
Why do you put forward such a lie if not to bloody religion.
@Hunterkirk There is a quote by Christpoher Hitchens that makes this point much better than I could, so I quote: "Show me a moral statement or a moral action said or undertaken by a theist that could not be said or undertaken by an atheist"... The point is there is anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc among believers and among atheists. There are atheist dictators and there are religious dictator. The differance between atheism and religion: No one has ever killed in the name of religion!
Atheist don't kill in the name of Atheism... they kill in the name of the State, or with Eugenics in the name of evolution and science. They kill in the name of Logic and Reason and they do this rationalizing it as being for the Greater good for man kind or nature. The desire to kill those you disagree with or those who are a threat to your power and control crosses all ideologies be they religious or atheist or secularist or environmentalist or whatever. That simply is a fact of human nature.
@Hunterkirk I agree with that. But in your video you gave the impression of believing that secular states such as the soviet union did kill in the name of atheism. Nazism, communism (stalinism, maoism), etc are ideologies that people have killed for. Atheism, however, is not an ideology! Neither is science or evolution. The danger is ideology, theocracy and fundamentalism. We seem to agree on this now though, so... no need for me to argue further.
I do believe that Communist States killed the religious intentionally as they were Anti Theist. The step between Atheism and Anti Theism can be very small. The leaders of ALL communist movements were Atheists. (referring to the Atheist movements that controlled Nations).
Atheism like Theism lends itself to creating a ideology. In all ideology's created off Atheism Man or Nature is the final top authority. Thus when such movement gain power their natural enemy is any ideology that does not put man's reason at the head. Thusly Communism tried in every case to kill of the Religious.
I think people fear the beliefs of others and thus they try to minimize or out right outlaw those beliefs and the people who present them. Complicating things is that some think their concerns can only be fixed by forcing others to believe or act in ways that they feel is best. This has also been a constant through out history.
I think both theists and atheist both fear the others influence on society. Sadly the truth is that they have reason both to fear. Living effects others.
@TheBlood2pay The common factor is people. Clearly history has included many a atheist leader who killed off the religious in the name of a "common good" (see USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc). Like wise the religious have engaged in wars of conversion and such (Islamic Expansion, Crusades, Frankish Kings, etc). The common element isn't religion or atheism it is people. People kill other people and people like to force their ideas on others. That is the real danger.
@Alkaholik187 I never said all atheist are dangerous. The title of the video was a counter to a video entitled "Theist are Dangerous" but the very first part of the discussion I made clear I was talking about a certain type of atheist which I labeled militant. This type of atheist ISN'T the "lets all get along" type. They are the "world would be better off with out religion" and the "religious views should NEVER effect the greater society" types. Both of those views are dangerous.
hate religion. i think not, religion is for people who need hope. if we look back, i believe a religion was made simply for hope. to give people a reason to live and to help people live by morals. if there is a god, i doubt he would want us arguing over religion, and want us to learn of his greatness on our own. because if he is so great we will not need assistance to see it.
You are wrong on many points. I'm sure this has been said multiple times from the comments. To catch your main point however ->
Atheists have no problem with religious people expressing their opinion or ideas -> we simply want a secular government. Everyone is free to believe or worship anything that does NOT infringe upon others freedoms...which is exactly what we see when you try and implement YOUR religious beliefs into the government & the laws that govern us. It's quite simple~
@H8theist And how do you define "Secular Government"? It seems to the religious that you define it as a government that is in no way influenced or effected by the religious. The kind of government that ONLY atheist and non-religious views and feelings are given representation... In short a government that only represents the Atheists.
Define free to worship and believe? You complain at any point should religion appear in public or be heard of in the schools (short of attacking religion).
America is a liberal democracy. The fundamental idea of liberalism is that the 'tyrrany of the majority' should not be allowed to exist. This is because, like you argue, it is unfair to not allow a person or group of people who hold differing views to those in power to express their opinion and to live their life the way they see fit. That's why it is important to separate church and state. Religions disagree and it would be unfair if only one religion held power over everyone.
@flamingtangerine Oh by the way the USA ISN'T a "Liberal Democracy" it is a Representative Republic. Read the Constitution or ANY of the founding documents and you will notice that "Democracy" does not appear in any of them. Democracy is by definition rule by mob. The person with the largest population rules. The majority of Americans are not liberals. So if the USA is a liberal democracy it would have to be rule by a minority with is a Oligarchy (rule by a few). Republic is Rule of Law.
Ok firstly liberalism is not an evil monster that is stealing your 'freedoms', it is the founding principle of the USA. That is literally the whole point of America. It was a place to escape the control of the church or the european monarchies. As a nation, the USA was founded on the liberal principle of freedom of the individual. If you read any of the documents of the founding fathers, especially James Madison you will see this.
To date I have never seen a liberal who didn't want to dictate to me how I should live and what I should or should not believe. The fullest manifestation of liberalism is communism in which they (as the government) tells you where you are to live, work, and how much you will be allowed to own all for the "common good" and "social justice" and Socialism in which they regulate every aspect of your life. Can you honestly tell me one area of our life in which liberals don't want to control you?
@Hunterkirk Well today i stand before you as living prooof that there is a liberal who does not wish to dictate what you do or believe, and i can assure you that almost all other liberals hold the same veiw because it is the main principle of liberalism. Please go and read On Liberty by John Stewart Mill, you don't understand what liberalism is and if you don't understand something, how can you criticise it? You are mostly arguing against communism, which is hugely different from liberalism.
@flamingtangerine Oh looked at John S Miller... the "greatest-happiness principle" was the same principle the Communist used to take away all personal freedom in the name of the "greater good of the State". He also promoted the theft of hard earned income in the name of "everyone being equal" which is nonsense and hateful to individual freedom. He also promoted the idea that people who didn't own something would be able to control what they didn't own... Miller HATED Liberty.
alright im 15years old im an atheist... i have nothing against religion my entire family is religious.. i dont believe in god.. im overall a really nice person.. i love my friends family... am i evil because of that? dont be too quick to judge everyone... :p
ReLicInsanity 3 days ago
@ReLicInsanity Then you are ok as a made the point of defining who I was talking about you get to decide if you fit the bill.
Hunterkirk 3 days ago
Hunterkirk , every single time an atheist mentioned that they were not in any way denying the possibility for the existence of some sort of god you purposely avoided this fact by parroting a dictionary definition of atheism. They all seamed to honestly say that they were totally willing to believe, given some verifiable objective facts. I am curious though, is your mind still open enough to at least consider the possibility that you’re your god is just a man created unfalsifiable concept?
claudbase 1 month ago
@claudbase I "parrot" the dictionary because many athiest seem to mix up agnostic with atheist. The title Atheist much like the title Theist have a foundational element of a conclusion on the matter of God. As a theist I have no question in my mind about God. Likewise as a atheist you have no question in your mind about God. The only group that is truly open are the agnostics who admit they don't have a clue about the issue. You may be a atheist with agnostic tendencies.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk You must then realize that, according to your definition, the vast majority of the atheist that exchange on the internet are what you call agnostic atheist since they are clearly saying that they don’t know for sure that their is no god, they simply reject the concept base on the lack of evidence. So did'nt you basically just admitted that the majority of these “dangerous” atheists on the Internet are actually more open than you when it comes to the concept of god?
claudbase 1 month ago
@claudbase It isn't "my definition" if you have a problem with the definition take it up with the dictionary. As for the majority of Atheist being "agnostic atheist" that is fine with me. It is impossible to discuss any issue unless you are speaking the same language and that requires commonly understood definitions.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
Ok, that's fair, I suppose. One small point, I wouldn't necessarily describe these people as buddies. Other than that, it's a fair point.
gimmeaneffinnamenow 4 months ago
Theism and "tolerance" - let's talk about this movement in the world, or, as they're often described, anti-everyone else, a secular society. Militant theists like to claim they're not dangerous, clearly they're united by common beliefs, beliefs they hold on faith because they can neither prove nor disprove their position and they're not open to the possibility that there may not be a god. Shit, do I need to go on? Look, my point is that by simply removing the a from atheist... Over to you...
gimmeaneffinnamenow 4 months ago
And that was why I created this video because a atheist did just that with his video and this was video response he did not permit. In fact he went further then I ever did as he claim ALL theists to be dangerous while I am specifically talking only about atheist who seek the destruction of religion. The title of the other fellows video was "Theist are dangerous" and your atheist buddies LOVED it and praised it. Yet as you pointed out when the counter claim is made they hate it.
Hunterkirk 4 months ago
While I am not american, atheists are concerned with similar problems in my country. I care little myself about random crosses on old monuments, but I do care if a political figure claims a god is giving him instructions. Would you be happy if a politican said Zeus told him to enact a law. In countries with low Christian populations, the Church seeks secular laws to protect itself from dominant alternative religions, in high christian states, they want no secular restrictions. hypocrites.
AMomentOfClarity2011 5 months ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011
If thats true then... he wouldn't be in office because people would not vote for him.
Aslong as the guy isn't giving the church powers to take over the government... thats fine.
As a theists I believe the church should not be allowed within government... because they are two different things. But a person should never be scard to say that they are a theist.
revron77 2 months ago
There is christian communism. Communism is a sociopolitical system, not a faith based one. The corrupted forms of it under Stalin (for example) did not remove religion because of a lack of belief in a god, they did it to grab power held by the church. Since the people would only support this action they spewed propaganda about religion, just like ALL corrupt governments use propaganda.
Atheism is not about punishing religious people. It is simply a rejection of god claims made by believers.
AMomentOfClarity2011 5 months ago
@AMomentOfClarity2011 "Atheism is not about punishing religious people. It is simply a rejection of god claims made by believers." and yet atheist have killed millions and attacked the religious across the world. Propaganda that used atheism to excuse these actions succeeded because of a violent side of some atheists. With out that element no amount of propaganda would have resulted in those murders in then name of anti theism.
Hunterkirk 5 months ago
Christians are quite powerful in politics the extremely religious is dangerous as they try and force their belief system on others. Any extreme group is dangerous to a community if they get to much power. The US is having a problem extremist groups control the two main parties. Most of us fall some where between the two extremes and are the root of the problem......See most people in the middle don't vote and have allowed nuts to take control.
Xatasha6611 5 months ago
@Xatasha6611 I would say Christian are largely moderates. Liberals and atheist tend to be the extremist. As is evidence you are far more likely to get hurt is a liberal protest then a Christian conservative one. More over the property damage of liberal groups in protest out strips any of the Christians by the factor of thousands if not millions. Most liberals are secularists and most atheists love secularism as it denies the religious representation in their government.
Hunterkirk 5 months ago
You can't generalise and go on to say that every atheist is part of some conspiracy, that's just absurd... we all have to right to determine what religious path we chose or weather we chose a religion at all... we haven't got the right to call people out as being dangerous just because their atheists, my family are atheist and my Mum's best friend is a strong christian, what it comes down to is weather or not your a good person, religious belief shouldn't effect that...
designkid5555 5 months ago
@designkid5555 Clearly you never watched the video. In the very first statement I defined the group I was talking about and it was not ALL Atheists. Seeing that you never watched the video I see little reason to further explain it until you do watch it.
Hunterkirk 5 months ago
@Hunterkirk Ahem the title of the video "Atheist Are Dangerous", I suggest your rename the video to "Militant Atheists Are Dangerous"...
designkid5555 5 months ago
@designkid5555 Considering this was a response to video entitled Theist are dangerous I see no problem with the title. In fact the video it was a response to claimed ALL theist to be dangerous.
Hunterkirk 5 months ago
Do you realize how hard it is to get an atheist into office? VERY FUCKING HARD! The only way is to eliminate theism in politics so as not to put one religion ofer any others.
SGTSlashRazor 6 months ago
@SGTSlashRazor I would argue it is very easy to get Atheists in the office. In fact I would argue that many if not the majority of the Politicians in office now are in fact atheist. They only pretend to be religious to get the religious vote but once in office they prove to be atheist in their activities and in any way that matters. In fact many secularist American's are in fact atheist and many liberal churches are basically atheist social club as they do little that is God based.
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
@Hunterkirk okay so if its so easy to be an atheist and be in office why dont they just say they are atheist instead lying. you said it is easy so why not just say it? you think america will vote for an atheist whos not lying about who he really is?
BEARARMZ 5 months ago
@BEARARMZ Good question and the answer is fairly easy. Political persons always try to look like the people that are voting for them. In a country in which the majority of the population is Christian than majority of those who run for office will pose as Christian. The perception is that this is because Christians would not vote for a atheist while that is in fact untrue few want to test it. The Democrat party is largely the Atheist party and in outright anti Christian when given a chance.
Hunterkirk 5 months ago
so what u r saying is every body that dose not think the same way u do that dont beleve in religon that they are nazi's and have you ever quesiond the bible?
Honyi1 6 months ago
@Honyi1 Nope. I am saying that Non-Christians who seek the elimination of religion have manifested this desire on a form of government called communism and under the banner of those states have killed millions of religious persons. Yes I have questioned the Bible and studied its history and it is for those reasons I am strongly Christian. I feel the evidence to support the Bible and the claims made with in it are historically VERY strong. Are you rejecting it because of personal desires?
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
Lastly, since "Atheists are dangerous", ) are religions other than yours dangerous if they want to impose a religious government in the USA? I am thinking you would answer yes, because you would not want to live in a muslim state, jewish state, hindu state, etc because it conflicts with your religion.... . Then why is your own religion any different? Isn't it equally dangerous, or at least undesirable, as any other religion? What is the difference?
kotsoven 6 months ago
@kotsoven Basically any ideology, belief or faith can be dangerous... atheism and religion includes (as well as secularism). It is a question on exactly how far you take it. In a representative government it assumes it represents the population it controls. If the majority are of faith then one should expect that to be reflected in the laws. If the majority are secularist the same should be true. Everyone believes the views of others they disagree with are dangerous to one degree or another.
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
However, I agree with you that not every atheist would settle for a pure secular state. Those are people that (pick 1: lower/raise) atheism to some sort of state religion. Hence, no secular state anymore, and i do not support those views, and I disagree with them just as strongly as I would disagree with someone who defends some form of religious government. Politics is (or should be) for ALL the people, based on democracy. Religion (or lack thereof) is not!
kotsoven 6 months ago
As an atheist i dislike all religions, however, i respect all opinions, even though some frustrate me or just make me pity the holders of those opinions. I strongly believe that state and religion should be separated, after all, what has religion to do with politics? This also mean that "atheist" views should also not affect politics. Communism and fascism are not examples of secular societies, since persecuting people based on religious beliefs is de facto not secular.
kotsoven 6 months ago
anti christ is way different than athiesm im so called athiest i believe you can believe in what ever the fuck you want, i have no anger what so ever on christians i even tried going to church i just cant believe in something so farfetched.
MrVolt11 6 months ago
@MrVolt11 Good for you then this video is not about you. If you watched it I made it clear from the starting statement that I was not referring to ALL atheists just to a select group and I went on to define what that group was. If you don't fit the definition given then the video has nothing to do with you..
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
@Renturd I disagree. What I refer to is a representative Democracy. Government should represent the values of its people and if the majority are atheist then so be it. In America the majority are Christian and to say that their beliefs are not allowed to effect the country they live in is oppressive.
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
Holy shit (pun intended), you couldn't be farther from the truth. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I never met an atheist who didn't believe in the freedom of speech. We, simply don't want you to interfere with our lives, you can believe whatever you want. I don't recall there ever being a group of atheists killing people for what they believe in. Check your bible, there's a lot of murder in that book. Atheism in government? What the fuck country are you from?
nomedsdog 6 months ago
@nomedsdog Then you must not have meet the following atheist groups: American Atheists com, Infidels org, Secular org, Freedom From Religion Foundation, David Silverman, Boulder Atheists org, atheistunderworld com, michiganatheists org, godlessgeeks com, thinkatheist com, cocore org, msatheists org, American Atheists, Inc., atheistsofflorida org, anamericanatheist org, rationalists org, atheistempire com, atheistsforhumanrights org... and many more including many atheist posters here.
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
HEY GUYS!
I have an amazing idea! How about we respect other peoples' beliefs?
Atheism is cold and logical.
Religion is warm but totally illogical.
CHOOSE. SERIOUSLY, and stop bitching.
TheAkavirian 6 months ago
LIVE ON. ALL OF YOU
BeevazGaming 6 months ago
Why are you so afraid of atheism?
rudai123 6 months ago
@rudai123 See Communism. Whay are you so afraid of religion?
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
@Hunterkirk religion can be used a weapon that gives power to bullies, ala Warren Jeffs, over those that have "faith"
rudai123 6 months ago
And Atheism can not be used as a weapon that gives power to bullies, ala Satlin, Hồ Chí Minh? I will agree that religion can be used to forward abusive activities. Yet I think atheism can also be used in the same way. In fact I think the problem isn't really Religion or Atheism but is fanatics and power hungry people. These people will use anything to gain power including environmentalism, social justice, civil rights, and so on. What I think you miss is that many good people are religious.
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
@Hunterkirk Stalin and Ho Chi Minh may have been atheists, but they couldn't use that as a "divine message". There lies the difference. Religion can be used to threaten someone in the afterlife (ala Hell), that is why it can be such a powerful weapon. This is how Warren Jeffs was able to get young girls to have sex with him. He threatened that they would "go to hell" if they didn't.
rudai123 6 months ago
Instead they use "Reason", "Evolution", "Science", "Greater Good" and so on to justify their mass murders of millions. Again people who desire power will use what ever is at hand to get it. Should their be ill feelings toward religion they will use atheism and "science" and "reason" to justify killing off the religious if it will in the end give them the power they want. Likewise religion has been used for the same twisted power goals. Again it is the fanatics not the ideals that is dangerous.
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
@Hunterkirk Again I disagree. "Faith" by definition is the absence of reason and logic. "Believers" can be coerced to do bad things in the name of Faith without a counter balance of reason and evidence.
rudai123 6 months ago
Faith exists outside of religion. Reason is not a universal truth. Reason is based largely on personal bias and cultural teaching. One cultures reason will differ from an other just as much as the reason and logic of one person will differ from any other persons logic and reason. You have faith in Logic and Reason. As a atheist those are your Gods, but you never really bother to look at Logic & Reason in a Analytical way. Instead you name your wishes & thoughts as being Logical and Reasonable.
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
"Having a say in public" is a far cry from actually modifying the laws of the country to suit your religion that I have plenty of reason to not believe is even remotely real. Your desire to make laws based on what I see as a book of magical fairy tales is where I think militant atheism is perfectly logical and will help us not destroy ourselves to achieve some afterlife.
alphaenemy 6 months ago
@alphaenemy So religious people show not in any way influence the country that rules over them? Have is that not a dictatorship of atheist Secularists? If the only rules that are allow are the Atheist and Secular ones how is that not oppression and dictatorship? Even more so since the Secularist and Atheists are the minority. Minority rule is part of a basic definition of a dictatorship. As to what you believe I really don't care and that isn't the point.
Hunterkirk 6 months ago
militant + atheis - the scariest combination of words i've ever heard
Mr1994Rmh 6 months ago
O my, I think you need to get to know some other atheists then the few you talk to on youtube here. And btw, almost no atheists are DENYING God, im open to it, but that doesnt mean I will accept it BEFORE evidence is presented. And thats what is pissing most atheists off, that we are somehow not "open" to it, because we are skeptical towards it and demands evidence.
gulbirk 7 months ago
@gulbirk Very first point I make is that not all Atheist are dangerous only those that seek the end of religion are.
Hunterkirk 7 months ago
Atheists as a group in the US tend to be decently educated (naturally there are exceptions), and as a result most are supporters of government transparency and standards of our government outlined in any introductory political science course. However, when religion infringes on the rights of others for reasons that are illogical and only motivated by said religion (i.e. gay marriage, stem cell research, first trimester fetuses have "souls", etc.) it's unacceptable.
jackalinnahat 7 months ago
@jackalinnahat Your are making a lot of generalization and unsupported claims here. I would need to see your supporting information and examine the studies you feel support your claims before making a comment.
Hunterkirk 7 months ago
Wasn't the Norway terrorist a Christian?I consider a group of people who believe they are not held accountable for their actions merely because it is the will of their vengeful god to be be very dangerous. Athiests and agnostics however tend to act on logic and personal belief, not some book written 1600 years ago.
cokeindew 7 months ago
"Wasn't the Norway terrorist a Christian?" Nope. He was a Atheist. What is confusing you is that he was strongly anti Islamic and strongly the tradition Judia-Christian European Culture, but in his writings he clearly states many times over that he himself didn't believe in God. I understand the media and certain people have been trying to sell him as a Christian terrorist but that is simply a lie. In fact his writing were VERY logical although his conclusions I think as deeply flawed.
Hunterkirk 7 months ago
@Hunterkirk "Wasn't the Norway terrorist a Christian?" "Nope. He was a Atheist" He was in fact a fundamentalist Christian, he described himself on Facebook as Christian and was even a member of The Knights Templar Europe. Maybe you should check your facts before spouting out bullshit?
XGodFearingAtheistX 7 months ago
Examine the article "Norway Shooting Horror: Killer's Manifesto Denies True Faith in Christ". He writes on page 1307 of his online manifesto:
“If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.”
check before spouting out bullshit?
Hunterkirk 7 months ago
@cokeindew Another problem is that you wrongly assume logic to be constant. What you forget is logic is based not only on personal bias but also on assumed facts. For example if you assume that humans are put in to race classes and that in the end only one of the races can win survive due to evolution then the logic of the Nazi's and other race based radical movement become clear and reasonable. The facts and assumptions the individual has makes their logic largely individual.
Hunterkirk 7 months ago
Hmm when was the last time there was an atheist terrorist ?
Morclaw 7 months ago
@Morclaw Unibomber
Hunterkirk 7 months ago
im atheist. i truly hate religion, i hate the nazis more than religion . im dangerous because im a good fighter not because of my beleifs but because i dont like alot of people. whats the world without violence? over-population, leading to death. Finally, if there is a god give me proof.
djlocman3 7 months ago
@djlocman3 Yes I have heard from those environmentalist that the world is over populated and I have heard for there dreams that billions of people die off to save "mother Earth". You may have a chance with Christians as there are a good many who are in to non-violence. With Islam well you will have to deal with a religion build on violence and number in the billions. I wonder if they be as kind a majority as Christianity has been?
Hunterkirk 7 months ago
I truthfully dont care what anyone believes in unless its getting people hurt or killed..
ItsNotAllBoutRockets 7 months ago
Extremists of any religion/political party can be dangerous.
Bungogin 7 months ago
A militant atheist that seeks to destroy religion? Why you've described me to a T. Soon we will be the majority and will simply ensure your children are educated enough to understand your full of shit. We won't physically destroy you, just out breed you. Your just a bad weed in the lawn of humanity
rtwoteabag 8 months ago
Religion is a belief in a deity, not an idea
Philosophy is an idea (ei Taoism)
Thus atheists do not follow a religion, we follow a philosophy
MsLookitsme123 9 months ago
@MsLookitsme123 religion/philosophy what is the effective difference when is come to interacting with the world around you? I see none. Except perhaps that atheism in the purest sense is simply the belief that something is not so, BUT in denying this they have the cast aside the many moral and social rules it presents. Result is they have to create or find philosophy that covers the missing moral and social rules. To do that they have to embrace illogical assumptions base on whims.
Hunterkirk 9 months ago
I think I went overboard.
dav1d908 9 months ago
@dav1d908 I understand that I am force to tell the story behind the title time and time again, but for you I will repeat myself. This video was a counter to a video that claimed ALL religious people were dangerous. The owner of that video refuse to post my counter. So I labeled it the same way he labeled his. On my part I made it clear that I was not referring to all atheist while he made it clear he was referring to all theists.
Hunterkirk 9 months ago
@TraceurAlec I have read the Bible from front to back a number of times and that is why I am a Christian and not a Atheist. So for the bigoted hatemongering website you direct me to it is at best uninformed about the Bible worse it is pure slander and hate. Thanks for your hateful input.
Hunterkirk 9 months ago
Not all of us are dangerous. To us, there is nothing after death, most won't just go kill theists, because we don't want to end their one and only life. I love all religions.
dav1d908 9 months ago
@dav1d908 Where in the video did I say all atheist were dangerous?
Hunterkirk 9 months ago
@Hunterkirk Yes, I agree with one of the other commentators on this bar. You are wrong on many points in this video. (1) For starters, someone said that you were saying that all atheists were dangerous, and you said that you didn't say that in any way, shape, or form. For one thing, the title of your video is misleading because it's saying that ALL atheists are danger to society and not just the ones that follow this trend of "militant atheism" as so many would call it.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 "For one thing, the title of your video is misleading because it's saying that ALL atheists are danger to society" And you didn't read my response to him which explained in detail the reason for the title. Also note the very first statement of the video corrects this.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk You've transformed this from an argument against militant atheism to an argument about secularlism and its supporters, including those that are religious, but don't want government to impose the general views of their religion upon the society. In your response, there are several holes in your reasoning. (1) You're trying to make it seem as if secularlist or secularlism in general is trying to impede the equal representation of Christians in the country, which is certainly not true.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 No you brought in Secularism and YES the Secularist ARE trying to impede equal representation of Christians in the country. At the fore front of this effort are the ACLU and many "Separation Between Church and State" groups. (PS: Please try to keep your post to a single or at most 2 posts... if you want a longer discussion message me. I generally have a rule against multi posting on my forum)
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk I would respond to you via message, but you have friend lock, and I cannot make a response unless you add me as a friend.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk There are several holes in your reasoning of your response. Before I say anything though, I'd like to point out that you've turned this argument from a statement against militant atheism into an argument about secularlism in general. That's you really focus on in your response, and I can talk about your statements in the following way: (1) What you're saying here, from what I understand, is that religious people are somehow being denied representation from secularlist in government.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (1, cont.) The question is, how? How would people somehow be able to deny representation of religious people on the floor of government when, the last time I checked, we still live under a representational government that allows for free and fair elections to pick the leaders to represent our goals in the government. After all, we still have conservatives in the government that wish to uphold religious values, and these people are representations of the people that elected them.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Easy they use the redefined argument of "Separation Between Church and State" to have any representation of religion in either law or in the public forum be banded by liberal judges. They have taken this so far as to keep Churches from meeting in public buildings when they allow other groups to do so and keep schools from renting Church buildings for large gatherings when schools are allowed to rent no religious buildings for the same functions.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (1, cont.) After all, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is a representative of the people. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is a representative of the people. There are other conservatives as well who are representatives of the people, and they show the ideologies of the people that elected them. Plus, it'd be pretty unrealistic to believe that the representatives of these people would bow down to any anti-religious ideologies when they count on the vote of the people they represent.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Yes and if they show faith they are attacked for it by the liberal media. In fact in any debate held by the "mainstream" liberal media of Republicans they also include questions linked to faith in the hopes to try to caste the Republican as some kinda religious nut (it always fails to have impact on Conservatives and most moderates as they respect Religion. Liberals generally don't respect religion hence most Atheists who are political are liberal democrats.)
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (1, cont.) People are not going to vote for someone who doesn't pose to be what their interests are, so this image that you paint about people in government bowing down to secular ideologies may be just their bowing down to the ideologies of the people. Otherwise, they don't get elected, do they? (2) You also pull up the image of secularlism in general and directly connotate it to being part of liberalism.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Yes and that is why the secularist have created the idea of "Separation Between Church and State" and have defined it that at no time will the morals and beliefs of the religious be allowed to be represented in the public forum or in the laws of the nation. Something that if you study history you will find only occurred around the time President Wilson and his liberal progressive government. The first congress even printed a large number of Bibles.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (2, cont.) As far as that's concerned, it's not a question about liberal or conservative anymore. It's a question about constitutionality, morality, and what's acceptable for America. After all, there are conservatives who aren't that keen on religion based on the states they represent. Just look at Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who have more socially liberal policies. Then, of course, there's the First Amendment.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Yes sadly Snowe and Murkowski are "Republicans" and they have been the greatest allies the democrats could have.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (2, cont.) Yes, we're a country that embraces the idea that government should work for the people, but at the end of the day, it has to correlate with the American Constitution, which is the law of the land. Our First Amendment rights states that we have freedom of/from religion, and as far as government is concerned, religion should have no place in the decisions of government.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 NO... Only liberals and mistaken moderates think that the "Government should work for the people". For Conservatives and right thinking moderates they understand that the government is a needed evil and the less of it we can have the better. That the "Safety Nets" have become dependency spider webs design to ensure Democrat election victories. The Constitutional role of government is largely to keep the peace and protect the nation from foreign threat NOTHING MORE.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (2, cont.) And just because a policy with a religious ideology doesn't get passed (which have before), that doesn't mean that people aren't getting an equal say in government. It means that the people of government are trying to uphold the Constitution and the people who elect them have a secular view, so they have a stronger influence in government. Like you said, democracy means for the people, and it's the majority of people supporting something and it's constitutional, it goes.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 It does when the courts are used to make the passed religious ideology illegal.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (2, cont.) Then, beyond the idea of democracy and constitutionality is the question of morality. We are an eclectic nation composed of, not only atheists, but Jews, Muslims, agnostics, pagans, and so forth. By placing a religious doctrine as the centerpiece for government, sure, we'd be supporting the majority of people, but we'd be imposing a doctrine against people of other faiths in the country. Would it be moral for someone to margnilize another religion for Christianity?
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 Are you claiming that if you allowed religious representation (which we largely don't today) that there would be theocracy? You forget that the population of the USA at its founding was near 100% Christian and this didn't happen. It is only bigotry that would led some one to make such a claim. The Christian faith isn't designed to run governments and if you knew anything about it you would understand that. All it does is set forth moral code and not government laws.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (3) Before bringing this to a question about secularlism, however, you said something that was just downright offensive: the people that don't want government to impose its views on society are just self-hating. That's nothing more than an ad hominem attack. What's more is that you said that many "regular atheists" just don't care about any of these topics. How do you prove that? Where does that come from? So, with your statement about self-hatred, that's a logical fallacy.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
Easy for liberals liberalism has always trumped their religions. It is the liberals that are largely the Secularist movement. That is why Liberal Jews can support Muslims who are calling to kill all Israeli Jews. Liberal Christianity is largely just liberal meeting places with the dressings of religion on them. Proof is that should the Bible (the only text by which we Christians have any understand of God) conflict with the liberal position the liberal christian will side with liberalism.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (4) Back to democracy, you go on and on about how the government needs to represent the majority. What does the majority want?
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
NO... I go on and on with REPRESENTATION. For a government to be representative it must represent its people. When you look at nearly any poll on if the people feel represented in the USA by their government (namely policies and practices) you will find that never does it cross 50%. What we in truth have is a country run by organizations and activist groups and media groups along with a handful of powerful companies that use the government to protect their wealth and companies.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (1, cont.) For another thing, in the beginning of your video, you were commentating on what militant atheism is and what you said was not only anti-Christianity, but also included people who were in support of separation of church and state. There is where you made a mistake because "militant atheists" are not the only ones who support this, but also "regular atheists" and even believers of faith are respectful of secularism in the country. Maybe you just made a mistake or something.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
You are trying to claim ALL "regular atheists" support the complete "separation of church and state" as currently defined as the religious not in any way shape or form influencing the government that rules over them. So you are in fact making a gross over generalization. Many "regular atheists" just don't care about the topics being discussed at all. And yes there are self hating religious people who feel that their faith should not be allowed representation in a representational government.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (2) Then, there's your point about how atheists are somehow running the country. That's completely untrue. Could you please name even 1 atheist who is running the country at the present time period? How are atheists running the country? (3) Also, as far as democracy is concerned, if this bunch of atheists are only representing a small group of people and whatnot, why are they still even being elected? Therein lies a huge paradox.
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
@GentlemanThunder7 (2) again you are wrong, the fact that you have religious people bowing to the control of the Atheist (liberal) Secularist control of the state in which ONLY secularist views are allowed representation is in fact ONLY supportive of Atheistic goals. (3) No Paradox at all there are many religious groups that have bought the secularists line and thus are self silencing and in fact turn on their fellow theist should they dare to want to be represented by their government.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
@Hunterkirk (3, cont.) Also, while you talk about democracy, please be aware that we live in a representative democracy where the people indirectly affect the government. A lot of people may support something, but that doesn't necessarily mean that government will do it nor does it mean that it will be good for the society. (4) Then, of course, you pull up communism and fascism. Who says that the dictators that these economic systems represented were doing murders because of their atheism?
GentlemanThunder7 8 months ago
(3) Yes a REPRESENTATIVE Government that "Seperation between Church and State"-ers would deny the REPRESENTING of the religious. Also a government that does not represent the wishes of the majority ISN'T (by definition) REPRESENTATIVE.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
(4) It is a FACT that the Communist leadership has and remains Atheists to a man. The fact that they oppress the religious for stated reason not titled "atheist" does not change the conflicts nature. Racists seldom oppress based on race they make other claims like "Oh it is full now, or You would not fit in." Likewise the Atheist rulers of Communist states kill and oppress not because they are atheist but because the religious are dangerous - a comment repeated by your fellow atheists.
Hunterkirk 8 months ago
You are right in a sense. I am a militant atheist and I am out to destroy whatever bullshit exsists. No matter how you package it. Religion is bullshit and bullshit only adds to more bullshit. Fascism by the way was a religious group. Communism was an atheistic movement however most atheists such as myself are not communists. Communism proved itself to be a bullshit theory. The religious zealots of Russia are the one most likely to want communism back.
somethingdiffereable 9 months ago
Only the elimination of all conservative Christians will allow all Americans to be free and the world to no longer have to live in fear of the U.S.A.'s imperialist, terrorist holy war. The conservative ideology has never helped mankind in any way, it has not only never helped mankind in anyway, it has oppressed, murdered, raped and killed all those in it's way to gain power. History shows us this. Fact shows us this.
cpmondello 9 months ago
Hasen't religion proven to be more militant than Atheism? I mean when was the last time you heard of an Atheist strapping a bomb on himself and walking into a market. Or when did the last "Atheist Crusade" march its way through Europe killing, raping, maiming, and stealing.
theevilmeister 9 months ago
@theevilmeister "when did the last "Atheist Crusade" march its way through killing, raping, maiming, and stealing." In Communist China, Vietnam, and in North Korea. Far more recent then the Crusades.
Hunterkirk 9 months ago
@Hunterkirk Try thinking a little bit. The Crusades were done "in the name of God". The oppressive leaders of the nations you named have not done their evil deeds in the name of atheism. Don't lump us with dictators. And we don't hate religious people, we hate it when religious people cram their beliefs down peoples' throats.
Littlegraycells28 9 months ago
@Littlegraycells28 Good advice you should try to think. Why did these communists and socialists target the religious for extermination? Could it be because they were religious and these communist where atheists? Could it be that they hated these religious people and as cpmondello side they thought the world can only become perfect by the extermination of religion?
Hunterkirk 9 months ago
@theevilmeister Hitler was a catholic,but he soon discovered Darwin's work and impeded that it was his job to help evolution.Foolish thoughts and ramblings of uneducated guess work does not help your cause.Look into the number of criminals converted to religion in prison,why would they be converted if they had religion in the first place?What about Marx?Did you consider these things before you spoke?Show me proof im wrong.
clawedification 9 months ago
@theevilmeister Commuism is a religion. Atheism was a way to get power away from the pulpit. Its very purpose was to supress all free speech, including religions speech. American atheism is not militant. We don't want to take away your right to worship whatever or however you please. We just want you to see the truth. There is no God or gods in existance. We don't need them. We simply wish that you would reach this same conclusion on your own. By the way, Hitler was Catholic.
RyanTheTruthSeeker 9 months ago
@RyanTheTruthSeeker The open discussion of is God real or not is one thing but the active silencing of the religious is another. The Atheist Communist in the USSR, North Korea, China, Vietnam, and others looked to silence the religious (by killing them in many cases) because they were loyal to their faith and not the Human State government. Hitler may have called himself Catholic but many other leaders in the Nazi movement called themselves atheists.
Hunterkirk 9 months ago
I don't hate religion, I just think they should be made to pay tax.
formless777 10 months ago
@formless777 Interestingly the act of them being Tax free has largely been the reason why Religious Institutes have NOT been more involved in politics. In fact should they openly support a person for office they risk loosing their tax free status. Should they pay taxes then they can put any amount of money they wish behind people for public office. You know they are like the Unions in the fact that they can put a lot of feet on the ground.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk
You make a very reasonable point. However I don't think they can put as many feet on the ground as you or they think they can. Better yet, I am certain that if they did form political parties it would be tantamount to supporting abortions, because thats what the parties would be.
formless777 10 months ago
You have to consider another side effect of tax exemption for churches. All communities have disagreements and this is also true for Christianity. As a result there are countless denominations in the USA. The Tax exempt status makes creation of a small church or denomination possible, as they can afford it easier. Now lets say you tax them, that forces the religious to organize in to larger and larger groups to afford the taxes. This mean more concentration of the religious groups.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk
Well, you only make a partial point. You have suggested that the Christians are currently fractured. Do you really think they have it within them to agree on a common dogma ? Currently they have undue influence over politics. If they were allowed to form their own political party, they would merely split the vote and shake up the major parties. That might actually be a good thing.
formless777 10 months ago
Any group that feels like they are being targeted will soon forget their differences and join together to counter what they believe is their foe. There are enough commonly agreed upon beliefs in Christianity to unit them in the face of a foe which seeks to end their influence on society. The liberal Christians who are likely to agree with those seeking to end religious influence would either abandon their Christian faith to join with those who seek to destroy it or more embrace their faith.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
Pardon me, but I happen to be atheist. I am not out to destroy religion, I am not hateful towards christians or any theists for that matter, and i certainly do not want to strip you of free speech. But how dare you be no narrow minded as to imply, nay, support the concept that state should not be separated from church? What gives you the right to superimpose your religion in any public setting?
PartiallyLogical 10 months ago
@PartiallyLogical I don't seem to recall saying ALL atheist were out to destroy religion, but if your goal is to create a society in which religion has no influence at all in the culture, society, morals, and laws then you are indeed seeking to destroy religion.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk
If your concern is only militant atheism, you should change your title.
No argument against atheism is made in this case. Anyone militant is inherently dangerous. Militant Christians are dangerous, but that doesn't reflect on Christianity. An argument appealing to a group's violence only stands against the militant, not any arbitrary group that may contain militants.
Also, embracing separation of church and state is not destroying religion. It's protecting us from it.
thefrozenmercury 10 months ago
@thefrozenmercury Again this video was a counter to a video a Atheist had made by the Tile "Theist are Dangerous". Predictably they would not accept this counter video so I set it up solo. My video at the very start stated a certain element with in the atheist community is dangerous. In their video they claimed ALL theists were dangerous.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
really ?? you have got to be kidding me !!! more than 80% of war was due to religion of some type and the greed for power that pursues it and how it has harboured dangerous people from the law i,e child molesters, murderers and any other scum bag it has protected all religions are dangerous brain washing killing people in the name of god wtf is that, oh man I hope you're being funny.
awabast 10 months ago
@awabast "really ?? you have got to be kidding me !!! more than 80% of war was due to religion of some type'
Really?? Are you just stupid or just blinded by you bigotry against religion? Do some REAL studying and you will notice the VAST majority of war were secular based. Let me give you a list of a few of them... French Revolution, American Revolution, Civil War, Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2, Vietnam War, Korean War, Indian Wars, and Many Many more....
Nice talking with you HATER
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk ALL of those were recent, go back a few thousand years and you see a very differennt story.
kingtut521 10 months ago
@kingtut521 You mean like the Secular Trojan Wars, Roman Military Expansions, The Huns Military Wars, The Hawaii inter tribe Wars, the countless native American Wars, The countless Tribal Wars in Africa-India-Europe-etc, The Gothic Migration Wars, The Saxon Migration Wars... Seem to me Secular reasons are 90% of the wars of history and have kill many times over the amounts of ANY of the religious wars.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk *head desk*
kingtut521 10 months ago
"Hateful, bigoted, narrow minded, violent in the end." Sounds like he's describing Christianity. And FYI, bud, there are plenty of socialist countries in the world that don't try and kill religious people. Sweden, Denmark, Canada (where I'm from), blah blah blah. Not only is pulling the Socialist card a weak argument, it also makes you look very intolerant of a governmental system different than your own.
MrBCRMBST 10 months ago
@MrBCRMBST FYI, bud, there are plenty of religious countries in the world that don't try and kill because of religion. Italy, Britian, USA (where I'm from), blah blah blah. Not only is pulling the Religious card a weak argument, it also makes you look very intolerant of a governmental system different than your own.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@localphenom Sorry we don't worship man (man created evil). But you atheist worship man and nature. In many ways you are like the druids of the old pagan faiths.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk Atheists do not worship... Please do years of research about the word "WORSHIP" while you are observing Atheist behavior... Oh! Silly me, I'm telling a Theist to do a research?! WTF!! I really need to rest my mind... I deeply apologize for that bro! Well, do it your way... Please pray to your God that he will give you a full understanding of the word "WORSHIP" and I know you will because your God is always there right?... ^_^
maliciouslykind270 10 months ago
@maliciouslykind270 Look up the definition of Worship:
Worship = adoring reverence or regard (one of three meanings of worship)
With out question if you think the end all and be all is creation then you are in fact worshipers of it, even if you don't believe it to be a sentient God. How many times have liberal environmentalist said "Mother Earth"?
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
I wish we had a kill count for all organized religions. Then we'd understand who's really dangerous.
Also, on an unrelated note, you should probably learn about plural/singular agreement. I mean, c'mon. "Atheist are dangerous"?
plutowasaplanet01 10 months ago
@plutowasaplanet01 So I guess we would have to put all Secular wars kill counts in the Atheist camps... let use see that would be WW1 and 2, The American Civil War and Revolutionary Wars, War 1812 Vietnam War, Korean War.... If you think you can get a high kill count on the Religious conflicts then all those wars combine you are welcome to try.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
Religious people not being allowed to have their say!!?? How many openly self-proclaimed atheists do you come across in the political debates and forums in the US? And yes, I do believe that the scriptures of the abrahamic religions are equally immoral and disgusting to the ideology of Hitler (who was a roman catholic by the way) and his socialist nationalist party.
TheHmmhmm 10 months ago
@TheHmmhmm You mean the Nazi Party which planed to destroy Christianity and install a Nazi Church based roughly on the only Norse Gods and German legends... that Catholic.
"How many openly self-proclaimed atheists do you come across in the political debates and forums in the US?"
You mean those political people who claim to be Christians? I don't think there are more then 10 Christian Democrats in office. Bill Mahyr said he thought Obama was a atheist.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk Read up on it. The roman catholic church did much more than just stand by and watch what was going on.
Well, yes, I am too believing and hoping that Obama is an atheist... But you see no problem in the fact that people can't be open about their "lack of faith" in fear of not being allowed into that forum?
TheHmmhmm 10 months ago
I am sure they did, but you are acting like the Nazi's were a puppet of the Catholic Church when clearly that was not the case. In fact they required all ministers in Germany to be members of the Nazi party. Many of the Nazi leadership at the highest levels were atheists and another was pagan.
You admit that Obama may be a atheist pretending to be a Christian yet you deny the possibility that the Nazis were not Christian but simply used the Religion as a tool to forward a National Socialism.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk The nazi-party were definatly not puppets of the catholic church, I agree, it was rather the other way around. None of us (or anyone else for that matter) can prove if Hitler, Goebles, Himmler, etc were "true believers" or merely "faking faith" as a tool of winning support from other believers (especially considering that anti-semitism was WIDELY spread within the catholic churches and yes, also among secular people too during the early 1900's).
TheHmmhmm 10 months ago
My point is you seem insistent on pushing the idea that the Nazis were Christians yet you admit that they were using the Church as a puppet to forward a political movements goal... a political movement that had no real connection of friendship to Christianity as many of the leadership of the Nazi party plotted for the day they would change the Christian Churches in Germany into Nazi Churches with Hitler's book replacing the Bible.
Why do you put forward such a lie if not to bloody religion.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk There is a quote by Christpoher Hitchens that makes this point much better than I could, so I quote: "Show me a moral statement or a moral action said or undertaken by a theist that could not be said or undertaken by an atheist"... The point is there is anti-semitism, racism, sexism, etc among believers and among atheists. There are atheist dictators and there are religious dictator. The differance between atheism and religion: No one has ever killed in the name of religion!
TheHmmhmm 10 months ago
Atheist don't kill in the name of Atheism... they kill in the name of the State, or with Eugenics in the name of evolution and science. They kill in the name of Logic and Reason and they do this rationalizing it as being for the Greater good for man kind or nature. The desire to kill those you disagree with or those who are a threat to your power and control crosses all ideologies be they religious or atheist or secularist or environmentalist or whatever. That simply is a fact of human nature.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk I agree with that. But in your video you gave the impression of believing that secular states such as the soviet union did kill in the name of atheism. Nazism, communism (stalinism, maoism), etc are ideologies that people have killed for. Atheism, however, is not an ideology! Neither is science or evolution. The danger is ideology, theocracy and fundamentalism. We seem to agree on this now though, so... no need for me to argue further.
TheHmmhmm 10 months ago
I do believe that Communist States killed the religious intentionally as they were Anti Theist. The step between Atheism and Anti Theism can be very small. The leaders of ALL communist movements were Atheists. (referring to the Atheist movements that controlled Nations).
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
Atheism like Theism lends itself to creating a ideology. In all ideology's created off Atheism Man or Nature is the final top authority. Thus when such movement gain power their natural enemy is any ideology that does not put man's reason at the head. Thusly Communism tried in every case to kill of the Religious.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk I'm happy they succeeded here, in Estonia. One of the few good things communism gave us, atheism.
xxxrrrxxxrrr 10 months ago
I think people fear the beliefs of others and thus they try to minimize or out right outlaw those beliefs and the people who present them. Complicating things is that some think their concerns can only be fixed by forcing others to believe or act in ways that they feel is best. This has also been a constant through out history.
I think both theists and atheist both fear the others influence on society. Sadly the truth is that they have reason both to fear. Living effects others.
Hunterkirk 11 months ago
@TheBlood2pay The common factor is people. Clearly history has included many a atheist leader who killed off the religious in the name of a "common good" (see USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, etc). Like wise the religious have engaged in wars of conversion and such (Islamic Expansion, Crusades, Frankish Kings, etc). The common element isn't religion or atheism it is people. People kill other people and people like to force their ideas on others. That is the real danger.
Hunterkirk 11 months ago
@Alkaholik187 I never said all atheist are dangerous. The title of the video was a counter to a video entitled "Theist are Dangerous" but the very first part of the discussion I made clear I was talking about a certain type of atheist which I labeled militant. This type of atheist ISN'T the "lets all get along" type. They are the "world would be better off with out religion" and the "religious views should NEVER effect the greater society" types. Both of those views are dangerous.
Hunterkirk 11 months ago
hate religion. i think not, religion is for people who need hope. if we look back, i believe a religion was made simply for hope. to give people a reason to live and to help people live by morals. if there is a god, i doubt he would want us arguing over religion, and want us to learn of his greatness on our own. because if he is so great we will not need assistance to see it.
TheD1V1N1TY 1 year ago
Hunter-
You are wrong on many points. I'm sure this has been said multiple times from the comments. To catch your main point however ->
Atheists have no problem with religious people expressing their opinion or ideas -> we simply want a secular government. Everyone is free to believe or worship anything that does NOT infringe upon others freedoms...which is exactly what we see when you try and implement YOUR religious beliefs into the government & the laws that govern us. It's quite simple~
H8theist 1 year ago 3
@H8theist And how do you define "Secular Government"? It seems to the religious that you define it as a government that is in no way influenced or effected by the religious. The kind of government that ONLY atheist and non-religious views and feelings are given representation... In short a government that only represents the Atheists.
Define free to worship and believe? You complain at any point should religion appear in public or be heard of in the schools (short of attacking religion).
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk
America is a liberal democracy. The fundamental idea of liberalism is that the 'tyrrany of the majority' should not be allowed to exist. This is because, like you argue, it is unfair to not allow a person or group of people who hold differing views to those in power to express their opinion and to live their life the way they see fit. That's why it is important to separate church and state. Religions disagree and it would be unfair if only one religion held power over everyone.
flamingtangerine 1 year ago 2
@flamingtangerine Is that why you only call for democracy when you think the majority or largest mob is on your side?
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@flamingtangerine Oh by the way the USA ISN'T a "Liberal Democracy" it is a Representative Republic. Read the Constitution or ANY of the founding documents and you will notice that "Democracy" does not appear in any of them. Democracy is by definition rule by mob. The person with the largest population rules. The majority of Americans are not liberals. So if the USA is a liberal democracy it would have to be rule by a minority with is a Oligarchy (rule by a few). Republic is Rule of Law.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk
Ok firstly liberalism is not an evil monster that is stealing your 'freedoms', it is the founding principle of the USA. That is literally the whole point of America. It was a place to escape the control of the church or the european monarchies. As a nation, the USA was founded on the liberal principle of freedom of the individual. If you read any of the documents of the founding fathers, especially James Madison you will see this.
flamingtangerine 10 months ago
To date I have never seen a liberal who didn't want to dictate to me how I should live and what I should or should not believe. The fullest manifestation of liberalism is communism in which they (as the government) tells you where you are to live, work, and how much you will be allowed to own all for the "common good" and "social justice" and Socialism in which they regulate every aspect of your life. Can you honestly tell me one area of our life in which liberals don't want to control you?
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@Hunterkirk Well today i stand before you as living prooof that there is a liberal who does not wish to dictate what you do or believe, and i can assure you that almost all other liberals hold the same veiw because it is the main principle of liberalism. Please go and read On Liberty by John Stewart Mill, you don't understand what liberalism is and if you don't understand something, how can you criticise it? You are mostly arguing against communism, which is hugely different from liberalism.
flamingtangerine 10 months ago
More of the test..
8) I right to choose our own energy sources... for or against?
9) Right to protect oneself and ones own property against threats including wild animals... for or against?
10) Right to have a job with out being a wage slave to the Unions... for or against?
11) Right to not depend on foreign powers when deciding what the USA will do (see UN)... for or against?
12) A right to build and live where ever you wish? ... for or against?
13) A right NOT to buckle up
14) A right to Smoke
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
15) A right to have health care that ISNT regulated by the federal government
16) A right not to have to pay for things you don't support and don't want?
17) A right to build your own home the way you want it build?
18) A right to have cheep effective energy so you can have the electronical comforts you so desire?
19) A right to farm your land as you wish?
20) A right to kill bugs and pests as you wish?
21) A right to hunt animals on you own land.
More?. All denied by Liberals
Hunterkirk 10 months ago
@flamingtangerine Oh looked at John S Miller... the "greatest-happiness principle" was the same principle the Communist used to take away all personal freedom in the name of the "greater good of the State". He also promoted the theft of hard earned income in the name of "everyone being equal" which is nonsense and hateful to individual freedom. He also promoted the idea that people who didn't own something would be able to control what they didn't own... Miller HATED Liberty.
Hunterkirk 10 months ago