Athiests blind follow Darwin, despite the fact that he acknowledged his theory had wholes in it.
Athiests are fundamentalists, and want to convert everyone to their mode of thinking.
Athiests accuse religion of being the cause of all wars, when more people were killed in the 20th century due to athiesm (eg. the millions killed under Stalin's athiest regime)
Isnt it time athiests stop pointing the finger?
(btw I am not a Christian)
2006-12-18 09:47:14 · 14 answers · asked by hello 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Cara G communism has athiesm at its roots, please educate yourself
2006-12-18 09:54:38 · update #1
No... it's not a "blind" following of Darwin. And no, he DIDN'T acknowledge that it had holes... he admitted that it sounded IMPLAUSIBLE and THEN went on to explain how it is, in fact, NOT so implausible.
Please expand upon this theory. Fundamentalist atheism... I'd like some clarification on that.
Stalin NEVER killed anyone in the name of "no god". You erroneously assume that his atheism was some sort of motivating factor. Did he EVER claim to be influenced to kill by "nonbelief" or "nonfaith" or "non-god"? Conversely, how many people HAVE been killed in the name of "belief", "faith" and "god"?
If you want to call it finger pointing, I don't mind. I prefer to call it acknowledging reality, but... whatever works for you.
2006-12-18 09:57:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Do they? Blindly?
I don't follow Darwin; I know it for a theory, and as such, all theories can be disproven.
When exactly is the last time you were awoken on a Saturday morning by an Atheist at your door, telling you to convert? I personally could care less what religion you are - if it works for you, fine and dandy. Really has no affect on my daily life.
Research Stalin a wee bit more - he wasn't Atheist, nor was his regime. They had their own state sanctioned church. They threw out the Russian Orthodox Church for their own version of Christianity- in fact, it was much like the Puritans practiced - rather austere. And that is one leader out of how many hundreds of thousands? Your millions is off by quite a bit, BTW. The largest number of people to die under anyone's rule was during WWII - if you count up all the Jews, Jehovah's Witness, ATHEISTS, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally and physically handicapped, Christians who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, groups killed just because of region, soldiers and Non-coms, the number is staggering - about 64 million people. Stalin was not ever responsible - nor anyone under him - for that many deaths. Can't get much more 20th century than world war two.
Pointing what finger at what?
Every group has its fanatics - why should Atheism be any different. But to lump all atheists based on crapola you read on yahoo answers is to be more than just a little misinformed are the nature of reality outside of the computer.
BTW? ALL wars are started because of economics and usually greed. Religion sometimes plays into it - more often than not - but money and property is the thing. After all, The Golden Horde ranhavoc, so did the Romans, yet neither were christian. THink on it and see how your generalization was a bunch of crapola.
2006-12-18 09:59:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There were so many spelling errors in your rant that I can hardly understand a word of it.
Atheists never claimed to "blind follow Darwin". And if you're talking about Stalin he was a Communist not an Athiest.
Why don't you get an education before trying to blame everything on people you obviously know absolutely nothing about.
2006-12-18 09:51:39 · answer #3 · answered by *Cara* 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Atheists dont blindly follow anything.......that would make them believers...in whatever (you suggest darwinism). Atheists are by the nature of the name.....NON believers, theres no blind following, theres no Atheists church for gruds sake.
Your point about wars is ok, ANY excuse for a war will do, including religion. Religion was the OLD politic, now its just MONEY (Oil, diamonds, whatever..)
Atheists may have many faults amongst them, but trying to CONVERT people is definitely NOT one of them, thats for religious types who are very insecure in their beliefs (if they were secure in their beliefs they wouldnt feel the need to get others on board)
2006-12-18 10:05:32 · answer #4 · answered by Old Cynic 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Blindly follow Darwin? Follow him where? Kind of like we blindly follow other facts of nature? The fact is there are still "wholes" in evolution, and those wholes are being patched. Evolution, as a theory, has been modified considerably since Darwin's day. And, it must be stated, that scientists critically examine, improve, and edit Darwin's work as scientific theory, not a dogma.
Stalin was atheistic, but not scientific. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he stuck to his dogma. As the saying goes, without religion, evil people do evil things and good people do good things. But for good people to do evil things requires religion.
Religion is unambiguously evil. Get over yourself.
2006-12-18 09:56:23 · answer #5 · answered by STFU Dude 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Atheists don't necessarily follow Darwin, want people to think like them, or accuse religion of causing all wars.
By the way, the disbelief in god(s) has never caused a war.
2006-12-18 09:50:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
>> Athiests blind follow Darwin
By 'blind' you imply 'no proof'. There's proof of evolution: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html
>> despite the fact that he acknowledged his theory had wholes in it.
I'm sure you're referring to his reference in the origin of species where he was using a literary device to draw in people to the difficulty of explaining the eye. What you failed to read was the paragraph after it
( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html )
---
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872)
---
... and then he goes on to say:
---
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
---
... which we can do.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
====
>> Athiests are fundamentalists, and want to convert everyone to their mode of thinking.
'Fundamentalist' means: 'strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles'
... atheists don't have any of those. Atheists come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and beliefs. Some are anti-abortion. Some are agnostic about evolution. Some are humanists, some are not. There cannot exist an 'Atheist Fundamentalist' - it's an oxymoron, by definition.
>> Athiests accuse religion of being the cause of all wars, when more people were killed in the 20th century due to athiesm (eg. the millions killed under Stalin's athiest regime)
Yes, but try adding up all those killed under the Crusades, Middle East wars, and Hitler.
>> Isnt it time athiests stop pointing the finger?
When religion gets its nose out of my life and politics, I'll stop. Honest. But while there are:
- people advocating for recriminalizing abortion
- people killing abortion doctors
- people advocating to put Intelligent Design in the classroom
- people advocating to ban same-sex marriage
- people advocating abstinence-only sex education in schools
- people advocating to put prayer back in schools
- people advocating to put religious symbols in public areas (10 commandments in courts)
- people advocating to prevent sending Africa condoms to curb the growth of AIDS
... I'll be right here, pointing the finger.
2006-12-18 09:58:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
None of this is true.
Science progresses as discoveries are made, theories are proposed and evaluated by peers. Have you no understanding of science whatsoever?
Stalin killed because it served his purpose at the time, not "due to atheism".
2006-12-18 09:52:47 · answer #8 · answered by eldad9 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
one in each and every of my superb friends in my philosophy of religion type is an Atheist and that i've got self assurance in God. confident we debate yet we debate with reason and archives, there are matters we don't agree on yet who has an identical opinion with precisely the comparable subject as each and every person else? i've got self assurance the only time Christians and Atheists argue is whilst one or the two attempt to insult or implement there ideals on one yet another. i've got self assurance it particularly is trouble-unfastened for any argument religious or in any different case. wish I helped.
2016-10-18 11:13:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
lol i just asked this earlier.
i wonder the same thing. neither have proof beyond reasonable doubt that theirs is the truth, yet both are narrowminded and wont even look at anyone elses perspective.
both base their beliefs on the claims of a person/or persons.
granted ive never heard of death by athiesm as i have death by christians.
2006-12-18 09:50:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋