Right?

Atheism = Nothing

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

no.

Yes.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

a strange, caped figure leaped up onto our back porch a few minutes ago and shouted "The Bracers of Defense" at the top of his lungs, then ran off into the woods behind our house. It was very unsettling, it woke us up and we don't even know who he is.

devout once Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a strange, caped figure leaped up onto our back
> porch a few minutes ago and shouted "The Bracers
> of Defense" at the top of his lungs, then ran off
> into the woods behind our house. It was very
> unsettling, it woke us up and we don't even know
> who he is.

sounds like Spring-Heeled Jack to me.
Attachments:

He wore a very cruel, determined expression upon his face.

was he breathing blue flames?

if so, you just got a visit from London's own Spring-Heeled Jack.

or, it could've been the Mad Gasser of Mattoon...
Attachments:

could've been the Skunk Ape...
Attachments:

might've been Indrid Cold...
Attachments:

maybe even the Donkey Lady...
Attachments:

Um......thanks for all of that?

santa claus totally got pitted..........FWIPPAH!

Please do not take Santa's name in vein, mr blisters.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please do not take Santa's name in vein, mr
> blisters.


fair enough, you have your santa, i have my walken.

Devil's Reject Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Right?


Wrong.

Exactly.

Christianity:

God created everything and then spent the next five thousand years fucking with it for his own sick enjoyment.

Make sense?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Christianity:
>
> God created everything and then spent the next
> five thousand years fucking with it for his own
> sick enjoyment.
>
> Make sense?

Looks like somebody got their feelings hurt.

Jung Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Christianity:
> >
> > God created everything and then spent the next
> > five thousand years fucking with it for his own
> > sick enjoyment.
> >
> > Make sense?
>
> Looks like somebody got their feelings hurt.


Only the "Believers."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jung Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Christianity:
> > >
> > > God created everything and then spent the
> next
> > > five thousand years fucking with it for his
> own
> > > sick enjoyment.
> > >
> > > Make sense?
> >
> > Looks like somebody got their feelings hurt.
>
>
> Only the "Believers."

quit yer whining.

Jung Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > Only the "Believers."
>
> quit yer whining.


Isn't that what God told Jesus?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jung Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > >
> > > Only the "Believers."
> >
> > quit yer whining.
>
>
> Isn't that what God told Jesus?


Sounds more like what Gabriel said to Mary

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jung Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > >
> > > Only the "Believers."
> >
> > quit yer whining.
>
>
> Isn't that what God told Jesus?


Perhaps. But now you are being told.

Don't worry Washingtone-Locian, someday God will
send Gay-Heyzues to atone your sins. Gay-J will give
you guys someone you can relate to and believe in.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

I am in the Bertrand Russell camp (English philosopher) he said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that one cannot prove god exists just as one cannot prove god doesn't exist (both are fallacy arguments) - so he cannot be an atheist per se - but he is so far over onto the agnostic/atheist camp til manifestly proven otherwise....which in his lifetime and mine has never been evident.

Here's a little aside - you know when a plane crashes and they say 'praise god the little boy survived' what does one say about all the rest that died.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Here's a little aside - you know when a plane
> crashes and they say 'praise god the little boy
> survived' what does one say about all the rest
> that died.


They must have all been evil.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Actually, atheists don't believe in "nothing." They believe in evidence. Outside of that, it's a lot of assumptions. It's the product of reasonable thought. Though I would put myself in the agnostic camp, since I can't definitely say there is no God. Just that what is presented as the word of God doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Britdrnva wrote:
>"Here's a little aside - you know when a plane crashes and they say
'praise god the little boy survived' what does one say about all the
rest that died."

The rest were called back to God because they completed the purpose
God intended for them, no matter how fucked up you think it is or how
much you don't understand his reasons.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2010 04:10PM by Troll@AOL.

No one can (or does) say there is a 100% chance of there being no God.

But you can say the same thing about Santa Clause, Unicorns and Leprechauns. No one can say with 100% certainty that they don't exist, but we have no evidence of them ever existing, so why think they do? Because someone wrote about them in a book many years ago?

BTW, I don't know of a single atheist that believes that something came from nothing. We just don't know yet how the universe was formed. Homo-sapiens have been around for at least 200,000 years and it wasn't until the last 2000 years that we made any effort to find out.

The first telescope wasn't until the 1700s and we've only just begun to figure things out. Religious people seem to think that because scientist haven't figured out EVERYTHING about the universe, that whatever we don't know is Gods handiwork. They've been saying that about these things for centuries now and continually get proven wrong. Then they simply adjust their story to fit whatever science figures out.

Scientists would certainly know a lot more about the universe if it weren't for the meddling religious nuts impeding progress and killing some of the great scientists and philosophers of the past.

Numbers wrote:
>" They've been saying that about these things for
centuries now and continually get proven wrong.

SCIENCE continually proves ITSELF WRONG.
NOT creationists idiot.

>"Then they simply adjust their story to fit whatever
science figures out."

Don't get me started on 'adjusting the story', say, are
you a methematician by any chance, 'Numbers'?

The problem with nut-bags like yourself is, you talk about
religious intervention and the murders of philosiphers but
you make no mention how the LIARS in history, made a
huge negative impact on progress and understanding. For
instance; when a supposed 'athiest' like yourself creates
threads and titles them "Don't Believe in Evolution", and
then shows us stupid pictures of animals as though you
have some obviously apparent and tangible evidence that
PROVES your assertion in the title.

This type of shit only serves to destroy your credit, and
belittle your tainted opinion.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Scientists would certainly know a lot more about
> the universe if it weren't for the meddling
> religious nuts impeding progress and killing some
> of the great scientists and philosophers of the
> past.

Yes, atheists are such understanding tolerant people.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, atheists are such understanding tolerant
> people.


The ole Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin argument huh?

Because all 3 did what they did because they were atheists, right? They each said to themselves, "I'm an atheist. I can kill everyone because of that."
I hope you can do better than this tired old nonsense.

For every one megalomaniacal atheist you can did up, there are at least 10 religious ones that actually did horrible things, in the name of religion.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one can (or does) say there is a 100% chance of
> there being no God.
>
> But you can say the same thing about Santa Clause,
> Unicorns and Leprechauns. No one can say with 100%
> certainty that they don't exist, but we have no
> evidence of them ever existing, so why think they
> do? Because someone wrote about them in a book
> many years ago?
>
> BTW, I don't know of a single atheist that
> believes that something came from nothing. We just
> don't know yet how the universe was formed.
> Homo-sapiens have been around for at least 200,000
> years and it wasn't until the last 2000 years that
> we made any effort to find out.
>
> The first telescope wasn't until the 1700s and
> we've only just begun to figure things out.
> Religious people seem to think that because
> scientist haven't figured out EVERYTHING about the
> universe, that whatever we don't know is Gods
> handiwork. They've been saying that about these
> things for centuries now and continually get
> proven wrong. Then they simply adjust their story
> to fit whatever science figures out.
>
> Scientists would certainly know a lot more about
> the universe if it weren't for the meddling
> religious nuts impeding progress and killing some
> of the great scientists and philosophers of the
> past.


Most of the scientists who I personally know, are in fact religious people. I understand your comment about religious persecution in the past, but nowadays there is no conflict of interest between the two elements. The Vatican even has their own observatory, and within the past year or two they released an edict declaring that the existence, or the belief in the existence of intelligent Extra-Terrestrials is not in conflict with Christianity.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Vatican even has
> their own observatory, and within the past year or
> two they released an edict declaring that the
> existence, or the belief in the existence of
> intelligent Extra-Terrestrials is not in conflict
> with Christianity.


To their credit, they've also accepted evolution as reality. They had to, as it has become indisputable to anyone with half a brain.
The Vatican, like a few other religious denominations, has simply written God into the evolutionary process.

I've actually seen the Vatican telescope and it's pretty impressive. The priest/Cardinal in charge of the observatory is a fairly bright guy and truly loves astronomy. I doubt he really believes in the biblical God, but I think he believes in the possibility of aliens.

Heeeeeeeeeeey, whoa there...cowboys!! This..that, whatever was a jokey-joke, so..let's calm down, stop taking everything so damn seriously and moooooooove on....thanks! :]

That's it Numbers, show 'em what a smart athiest
you really are!

Oh an your insinuating the church has accepted
evolutionary theory in place of their creationist
views is a blatant lie.

What did I tell you about decietful lying?
IT DOES NOT HELP ANYTHING!

You can keep ignoring the obvious, but your ignorance
sure won't bennefit your unscientific aproach or your
non-comprehension of the simple physical realm you
live in.

Face it, your too stupid to understand the simple answer
you're looking for.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2010 08:16PM by Troll@AOL.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-pope-accepts-evolution.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution

http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Qy2

http://biblelight.net/darwin.htm

Like I wrote in my earlier post, evolution is indisputable to anyone with half a brain. This is where you lose out, Troll.

Thought I said to stop taking things [so] seriously and move on..

Quote From: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution?wasRedirected=true
>"the attitude of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution
has slowly been refined"

It says REFINED not RE-Defined. Learn to read Numbers.

***Evolution is a device of GOD, created by GOD, to physically
serve as a means of carrying on GOD's creation.***


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Numbers wrote:
>"Like I wrote in my earlier post, evolution is indisputable
to anyone WITH half a brain. This is where you lose out, Troll.

SORRY YOU ONLY HAVE HALF A BRAIN : (

This half a brain, might be the reason why atheism is indisputable to you.

.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

You know....I like kindergarten and all...but bringing that kinda stuff online is just..well.....[childish] and not even remotely funny anymore, soOoOo, move on. Thanks.

STFU. He/SheDevil's Reject.

We have thoroughly highjacked your thread.

DEAL.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

lol @ "WE" you mean, "YOU" but, I mean, I don't care, it's just..you're not saying anything interesting, at all. And it's retarded. But k, I'll "deal" alright! ;]

Devil's Reject Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You know....I like kindergarten and all...but
> bringing that kinda stuff online is
> just..well..... and not even remotely funny
> anymore, soOoOo, move on. Thanks.


You're accusing people in this thread of childish behavior after starting a thread about how stupid atheism is?

If you start a thread with such an infantile "joke", you can expect more of the same.

Can't wait for your next "joke" thread. This one was really funny, hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahh!!!!!!!

Numbers Wrote:
> You're accusing people in this thread of childish
> behavior after starting a thread about how stupid
> atheism is?
>
> If you start a thread with such an infantile
> "joke", you can expect more of the same.
>
> Can't wait for your next "joke" thread. This one
> was really funny,
> hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahh!!!!!!!


lol, oh...so wait, Atheism ISN'T stupid? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! K! :]

I'll give you credit on the atheism is stupid pic.

It's not everyday you get a funny one, that also
effectively drives home a hard-hitting message.

Now I see why the Devil Rejected you!


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Yay! Good boy! :]

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers wrote:
> >" They've been saying that about these things for
>
> centuries now and continually get proven wrong.
>
> SCIENCE continually proves ITSELF WRONG.
> NOT creationists idiot.

This isn't quite accurate. I think that you would find a lot of value out of Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

You were right, I found the value;

Quote from http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
>"although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right.
That's why the theory lasted so long."

NEARLY right -but still WRONG.

0.000126 curvature per mile is still curved.
Just because the scope of your perception isn't large enough to percieve
the curve as a human being standing on the surface, does NOT make the
earth flat.

Same can be said for God. Just because the scope of your perception
doesn't allow for YOU to believe in or experience God, does NOT make
you any more correct to say there is no God, and you are still
consequently ABSOLUTELY WRONG.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote from
> http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/Relativityo
> fWrong.htm
> >"although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it
> happens to be nearly right.
> That's why the theory lasted so long."
>
> NEARLY right -but still WRONG.

It would depend on your viewpoint - however the point is that if you just flippantly say that it's always wrong you are missing the fact that while it may be wrong, it's not *completely* wrong. It's not as wrong as, say, the ancient greek religion or ancient biblical cosmology.

Science is, primarily, justified on pragmaticism. Simply put, *it works*. To deny this online, you have to use the fruits of scientific endeavors.

> 0.000126 curvature per mile is still curved.
> Just because the scope of your perception isn't
> large enough to percieve
> the curve as a human standing on the surface, does
> NOT make the earth flat.

That's not really what he was arguing for.


> Same can be said for God. Just because the scope
> of your perception
> doesn't allow for YOU to believe in or experience
> God, does NOT make
> you any more correct to say there is no God, and
> you are still
> consequently ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

Actually, that *could* very well be correct. That my perception of what 'God' is supposed to be is wrong and therefore it would be incorrect to say there is no God.

That said, I can only accept conclusions based on the evidence and reasons that I have. They may be insufficient, but it is what it is.

Shouldn't you have called me an idiot by now? That was a fairly reasonable response.

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
-C. S. Lewis

Maybe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the whole universe has no meaning, we should
> never have found out that it has no meaning: just
> as, if there were no light in the universe and
> therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never
> know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
> -C. S. Lewis


He makes this statement, but doesn't back it up with anything.

His analogy with light is flawed, since light is *photons*. So, *light*, in some sense, would exist - the definitions would be different, but if that's what he's saying, it's trivial and not analogous. This is because there are other things in existence that have 'meaning' (a painting, a book, etc) - which means we could extrapolate such things about the universe. There aren't other forms of light that we could 'see' with 'non existent eyes'.

Whilst we're on this topic - god - let's imagine the concept of god exists as you (the believer) imagine it.

How do you know that *your* god is *the* god? There are literally thousands of religions on this planet - how do they know their god is *the* god to which they pray to? What about the Romans, Vikings, Persians, Greeks, etc? They all believed 100% in their religion at the time. Their religion was *the* religion. You see, much like time - tis all relevant and doesn't really exist.

Your answer is likely to be faith - if not let's hear it. If so, then let's say you're a Christian of some sort here reading this. You may feel smug and answer that with your faith you just *know* that your god is *the* god. Okay, good answer - but let's suppose you were born in Saudi Arabia - would you be a Christian, would you just know that you had to believe in the Christian god/faith?

Maybe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the whole universe has no meaning, we should
> never have found out that it has no meaning: just
> as, if there were no light in the universe and
> therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never
> know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
> -C. S. Lewis


Meaning is relative, not an objective thing. Humans assign meaning to things. Without humans, there is no meaning.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Nobody is arguing about hardcore
religious fundamentalism, of ANY KIND.

Stop running yourself around in circles, with stupid questions like;
"how do I know my god, is THE God" -type of pointless tangents.

We WERE arguing;

CREATION vs. EVOLUTIONARY CRAP-SHOOT "theory".



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

WTL wrote:
>"Meaning is relative, not an objective thing. Humans assign
meaning to things. Without humans, there is no meaning."

TO HUMANS! ---------------> NO meaning to HUMANS!

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound, if nobody is
there to hear it?

OF COURSE IT DOES!

Just ask the dead Squirrel it landed on and crushed.
He made a noise also.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Isaiah 45:18 - For this is what the LORD says
he who created the heavens,
he is God;
he who fashioned and made the earth,
he founded it;
he did not create it to be empty,
but formed it to be inhabited—
he says:
"I am the LORD,
and there is no other.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Save your morning star bologna, WTL.

The fact that all historical accounts of a diety visiting this
planet seem to coincide, should be all the more reason to believe
that there may be truth behind their messages and that they may
all be altered variations of the same historical account.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Save your morning star bologna, WTL.
>
> The fact that all historical accounts of a diety
> visiting this
> planet seem to coincide, should be all the more
> reason to believe
> that there may be truth behind their messages and
> that they may
> all be altered variations of the same historical
> account.
>
>
> .

Uh huh. Keep telling yourself that.

Right, and you keep telling yourself, that there is no God.

:~ )


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Saw a special on the History channel once that talked about how many cultures talk about about a great flood and how it mirrors the biblical flood. I guess that means the flood never happened either according to WTL logic.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Save your morning star bologna, WTL.
>
> The fact that all historical accounts of a diety
> visiting this
> planet seem to coincide, should be all the more
> reason to believe
> that there may be truth behind their messages and
> that they may
> all be altered variations of the same historical
> account.

Actually *most* 'historical' accounts of deities visiting the planet do not coincide. Some do, others do not. There are certain themes present in many religions - Joseph Campbell nailed a lot of them.

Also, what is the historical core that these myths surround? A god man ascending to heaven? Redemption of sins? Or could it simply be that someone went around saying that God spoke to them?

All of the above.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Well Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Saw a special on the History channel once that
> talked about how many cultures talk about about a
> great flood and how it mirrors the biblical flood.
> I guess that means the flood never happened
> either according to WTL logic.


Floods happen. Ancient people located near flood planes often had flood stories. It's important to note two things:

1. Not every ancient culture had flood stories and those that did, didn't mirror the Abrahamic version. For instance, the Chinese had a flood account where they were able to thwart a flood.
2. There is no empirical evidence of a flood and all the evidence we have indicates no world wide flood. Further, if one did happen, quite a lot we know about science would be wrong (such as thermodynamics and physics).

It's more reasonable to believe that these are simply mythology - or, at best, local flood accounts which 'grew bigger' in the telling.

Well Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Saw a special on the History channel once that
> talked about how many cultures talk about about a
> great flood and how it mirrors the biblical flood.
> I guess that means the flood never happened
> either according to WTL logic.


There is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood in Earths history. If it actually happened, there would be a massive amount of geological evidence to support it and there just isn't. We can tell this by the way rocks and sediment settle. Sure, there may have been some pretty bad local floods (there still happening today), but nothing as cruel and as apocalyptic as Noahs Flood.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2010 10:37AM by Numbers.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Saw a special on the History channel once that
> > talked about how many cultures talk about about
> a
> > great flood and how it mirrors the biblical
> flood.
> > I guess that means the flood never happened
> > either according to WTL logic.
>
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide
> flood in Earths history. If it actually happened,
> there would be a massive amount of geological
> evidence to support it and there just isn't. We
> can tell this by the way rocks and sediment
> settle. Sure, there may have been some pretty bad
> local floods (there still happening today), but
> nothing as cruel as as apocalyptic as Noahs Flood.

It's also internally confused. What did the predators eat while on their year long boat 'float'? How did mayflies survive? Etc.

since you brought up thermodynamics, here is a short article about just that

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/m/jmc6/second_law.html

All great questions, for someone who does NOT understand
that God, if he so desired, could solve your problem by
making food that was nutitrious enough to last a year, and
that has a physical compostion that digest extremely slowly
as to not leave the comsumer not feeling hungry, for a year.

Who knows?

Again, your getting back into that stupid hypothetical
assumptive illogical and irrelevant questioning phase.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Also, how did he get land based species from parts of the world that hadn't yet been discovered? How did they cross they vast oceans and to get even 1/4 of the earths land based creatures, it would have taken a fleet of modern aircraft carriers to fit 2 of each species.

I'm pretty sure the whole story was just a metaphor for "Do what God says or he''ll kill everything on the Earth".

That's not saying much Numbers, because I'm pretty sure
you're an idiot, but that does NOT make me right.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Well Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> since you brought up thermodynamics, here is a
> short article about just that
>
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/m/jmc6/secon
> d_law.html


Red herring - this has nothing to do with what I was referring to.

It also begs the question with regard to the A theory.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All great questions, for someone who does NOT
> understand
> that God, if he so desired, could solve your
> problem by
> making food that was nutitrious enough to last a
> year, and
> that has a physical compostion that digest
> extremely slowly
> as to not leave the comsumer not feeling hungry,
> for a year.
>
> Who knows?

Yes, it's true that it could all be 'magic', but if that's the case, then it's not reasonable to accept it.

> Again, your getting back into that stupid
> hypothetical
> assumptive illogical and irrelevant questioning
> phase.

?

This is NO Red Herring;

Quote from http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/m/jmc6/second_law.html

>"Who or what could have produced energy in an available state
in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the
second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law
of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and
create energy in a state of availability in the first place."


Sorry Pangloss, but 'scientists' who are
EVOLUTIONARY CRAP-SHOOTER theorists,
can NOT refute the above.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Yes, atheists are such understanding tolerant
> > people.
>
>
> The ole Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin argument huh?

Hitler probably wasn't an atheist. Get a history lesson.

> Because all 3 did what they did because they were
> atheists, right? They each said to themselves,
> "I'm an atheist. I can kill everyone because of
> that."

Are you denying that atheism was an important component of Stalin's regime? Stalin didn't kill anyone because they held religios beleifs, right? Again, a history lesson is probably in order for you.

> I hope you can do better than this tired old
> nonsense.

It is no more tired than your nonsense about how all religious believers are anti-science and murderous people. How are you really different than the religious nutjobs with all your generalizations and stereotypes?

> For every one megalomaniacal atheist you can did
> up, there are at least 10 religious ones that
> actually did horrible things, in the name of
> religion.

For every one megolomaniacle religious zealout you can diG up, there are at least 10 more that made important contributions to humanity through charitable, philosphical, cultural or scientific accomplishments.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is NO Red Herring;

Really? Then how does it relate to the global flood idea?

>
> Quote from
> http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/m/jmc6/secon
> d_law.html
>
> >"Who or what could have produced energy in an
> available state
> in the first place? Only someone or something not
> bound by the
> second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of
> the second law
> of thermodynamics could violate the second law of
> thermodynamics, and
> create energy in a state of availability in the
> first place."

Is this 'scientist' talking about who produced the energy required for the global flood?

if not, then it's a red herring. It was presented to distract from what was being discussed (ie, the global flood, which is where thermodynamics was brought up).

It also begs the question on a number of levels, most specifically on the a theory of time.

>
>
> Sorry Pangloss, but 'scientists' who are
> EVOLUTIONARY CRAP-SHOOTER theorists,
> can NOT refute the above.

?

The above had nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It was a logical argument which committed the fallacy of begging the question that was introduced into this thread to distract from the notion that the global flood is impossible (you know, aside from 'magic').

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > Yes, atheists are such understanding tolerant
> > > people.
> >
> >
> > The ole Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin argument
> huh?
>
> Hitler probably wasn't an atheist. Get a history
> lesson.

He wasn't espousing that - he was saying that this is typical ad-hom canard.


> > Because all 3 did what they did because they
> were
> > atheists, right? They each said to themselves,
> > "I'm an atheist. I can kill everyone because of
> > that."
>
> Are you denying that atheism was an important
> component of Stalin's regime? Stalin didn't kill
> anyone because they held religios beleifs, right?
> Again, a history lesson is probably in order for
> you.

I would deny this, yes. Atheism is the lack of belief in God or the belief that God doesn't exist.

You cannot draw from that the conclusion that 'therefore we should kill people of faith'. You'd have to have a worldview in place to justify such beliefs.

Say, COMMUNISM.


> > I hope you can do better than this tired old
> > nonsense.
>
> It is no more tired than your nonsense about how
> all religious believers are anti-science and
> murderous people. How are you really different
> than the religious nutjobs with all your
> generalizations and stereotypes?


Some religious people are anti-science, some aren't. Some religious people justify murder based on their religious precepts, some don't. I agree with your over all argument, that you shouldn't judge all by the few, though.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Numbers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > > Yes, atheists are such understanding
> tolerant
> > > > people.
> > >
> > >
> > > The ole Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin argument
> > huh?
> >
> > Hitler probably wasn't an atheist. Get a
> history
> > lesson.
>
> He wasn't espousing that - he was saying that this
> is typical ad-hom canard.

Is it though? How is it any different than the accusations that some religious followers killed others in the name of their religions? In the name of gosateizm, Stalin executed over 100,000 religious leaders. It is hardly an ad hominum attack on Numbers, but rather an indictment of an individual who murdered in name of atheism.

> > > Because all 3 did what they did because they
> > were
> > > atheists, right? They each said to
> themselves,
> > > "I'm an atheist. I can kill everyone because
> of
> > > that."
> >
> > Are you denying that atheism was an important
> > component of Stalin's regime? Stalin didn't
> kill
> > anyone because they held religios beleifs,
> right?
> > Again, a history lesson is probably in order
> for
> > you.
>
> I would deny this, yes. Atheism is the lack of
> belief in God or the belief that God doesn't
> exist.
>
> You cannot draw from that the conclusion that
> 'therefore we should kill people of faith'. You'd
> have to have a worldview in place to justify such
> beliefs.
>
> Say, COMMUNISM.

And atheism was an important and guiding tenet of Marxist/Leninist communism.

> > > I hope you can do better than this tired old
> > > nonsense.
> >
> > It is no more tired than your nonsense about
> how
> > all religious believers are anti-science and
> > murderous people. How are you really different
> > than the religious nutjobs with all your
> > generalizations and stereotypes?
>
>
> Some religious people are anti-science, some
> aren't. Some religious people justify murder
> based on their religious precepts, some don't. I
> agree with your over all argument, that you
> shouldn't judge all by the few, though.

agreed.

WTL - interesting side-by-side with Horus/Jesus - thanks for the post!

One of the defining moments to Christianity is Easter - but that was also borrowed from pagan religions - look up Ostre.

It was first recorded in the 8th century but practised long before then by northern European tribes. As Christianity spread it amalgamated Ostre into their folds and called it Easter. Ditto Christmas (longest night), ditto Whitsun aka Pentecost (longest day).

This is all so very funny......

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Numbers Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, atheists are such understanding
> > tolerant
> > > > > people.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The ole Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin argument
> > > huh?
> > >
> > > Hitler probably wasn't an atheist. Get a
> > history
> > > lesson.
> >
> > He wasn't espousing that - he was saying that
> this
> > is typical ad-hom canard.
>
> Is it though? How is it any different than the
> accusations that some religious followers killed
> others in the name of their religions? In the name
> of gosateizm, Stalin executed over 100,000
> religious leaders. It is hardly an ad hominum
> attack on Numbers, but rather an indictment of an
> individual who murdered in name of atheism.

The difference is that you can murder someone and say 'god told me to', but you can't say the same for atheism. What you refer to is not simple 'atheism', it is an ideology that is derived from Marxism.

The same can be said of theism, you can't derive 'god said X' simply from the notion that God exists. You need precepts, worldviews, etc to layer on top of the assumption.

> > > > Because all 3 did what they did because
> they
> > > were
> > > > atheists, right? They each said to
> > themselves,
> > > > "I'm an atheist. I can kill everyone
> because
> > of
> > > > that."
> > >
> > > Are you denying that atheism was an important
> > > component of Stalin's regime? Stalin didn't
> > kill
> > > anyone because they held religios beleifs,
> > right?
> > > Again, a history lesson is probably in order
> > for
> > > you.
> >
> > I would deny this, yes. Atheism is the lack of
> > belief in God or the belief that God doesn't
> > exist.
> >
> > You cannot draw from that the conclusion that
> > 'therefore we should kill people of faith'.
> You'd
> > have to have a worldview in place to justify
> such
> > beliefs.
> >
> > Say, COMMUNISM.
>
> And atheism was an important and guiding tenet of
> Marxist/Leninist communism.

It's not a 'guiding tenet' since you cannot derive moral facts from it. It might have been important to Marxism as an underlying tenant of reality, but again, one has to layer axiomatic assumptions on top of atheism to get to any sort of reason for justifying anything.


> > > > I hope you can do better than this tired
> old
> > > > nonsense.
> > >
> > > It is no more tired than your nonsense about
> > how
> > > all religious believers are anti-science and
> > > murderous people. How are you really
> different
> > > than the religious nutjobs with all your
> > > generalizations and stereotypes?
> >
> >
> > Some religious people are anti-science, some
> > aren't. Some religious people justify murder
> > based on their religious precepts, some don't.
> I
> > agree with your over all argument, that you
> > shouldn't judge all by the few, though.
>
> agreed.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It is no more tired than your nonsense about how
> all religious believers are anti-science and
> murderous people.


I never said or insinuated that ALL religious believers are anti-science and/or murderers. In fact, if you had read some of my earlier posts, I gave credit to the catholic church for having a space observatory and for finally accepting evolution as fact.

You're making stuff up now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/2010 12:49PM by Numbers.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The difference is that you can murder someone and
> say 'god told me to', but you can't say the same
> for atheism.

Sure you can. In fact, Stalin did just that. While there may have not been any higher being "telling" him to kill in the name of atheism, it was his strong acceptance and promotion of atheism that did in fact prompt him to kill religious leaders he viewed as a threat to the state sponsored atheism.

> What you refer to is not simple
> 'atheism', it is an ideology that is derived from
> Marxism.

Marxism that emphatically embraces..........you guessed it - atheism. It is simply part of a greater organization. Much the same way Christianity is spread across various sects.

> The same can be said of theism, you can't derive
> 'god said X' simply from the notion that God
> exists. You need precepts, worldviews, etc to
> layer on top of the assumption.

While not untrue, it doesn't refute the fact that atheism was an integral part of Stalin's regime and he killed because of it.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It is no more tired than your nonsense about
> how
> > all religious believers are anti-science and
> > murderous people.
>
>
> I never said or insinuated that ALL religious
> believers are anti-science and/or murderers. In
> fact, if you had read some of my earlier posts, I
> gave credit to the catholic church for having a
> space observatory and for finally accepting
> evolution as fact.
>
> You're making stuff up now.

Hardly, you have a very similar attitude towards atheism that most religious whackos have. You cling to it very tightly, base your self worth on it and judge others harshly who happen to disagree with you.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The difference is that you can murder someone
> and
> > say 'god told me to', but you can't say the
> same
> > for atheism.
>
> Sure you can. In fact, Stalin did just that.
> While there may have not been any higher being
> "telling" him to kill in the name of atheism, it
> was his strong acceptance and promotion of atheism
> that did in fact prompt him to kill religious
> leaders he viewed as a threat to the state
> sponsored atheism.

Well, you can say it, but it would be empty. Stalin couldn't justify his views on atheism any more then he could on theism. How could he?

The best he could do is to justify it through an ideology, which was atheistic. This is not the same thing, you realize.



>
> > What you refer to is not simple
> > 'atheism', it is an ideology that is derived
> from
> > Marxism.
>
> Marxism that emphatically embraces..........you
> guessed it - atheism. It is simply part of a
> greater organization. Much the same way
> Christianity is spread across various sects.

But Marxism is not atheism. It is atheistic. Much like Christianity is not theism, it is theistic.

> > The same can be said of theism, you can't
> derive
> > 'god said X' simply from the notion that God
> > exists. You need precepts, worldviews, etc to
> > layer on top of the assumption.
>
> While not untrue, it doesn't refute the fact that
> atheism was an integral part of Stalin's regime
> and he killed because of it.

The fact is, it's not the relevant portion of the ideology that 'justified' the killing. Which is why it's absurd to say Stalin killed in the name of atheism.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Hardly, you have a very similar attitude towards
> atheism that most religious whackos have.

Please post an example of this. Are you saying that I might strap on a bomb and blow myself and others to smithereens? Am I likely to protest with signs reading "Atheists Hate Fags" or "Atheists hate Christians"? Do I believe in things with zero evidence or hope for the end of the world?

The answer is no to all of these.
Please post one statement from me where I advocate or incite violence against anyone.


> You cling to it very tightly, base your self worth on
> it

My self worth? Atheism is simply a non-belief in God(s) and is such a small part of my life. I'm around religious people every day and probably spend more time in church than you could possibly imagine. I have many christian friends/Pastors/Priests that I debate from time to time and we always enjoy it.
I do however feel it important to keep religion away from politics and will do whatever I can to see to that.


> and judge others harshly who happen to disagree
> with you.


Who are you to say how I judge anyone? I thought I've been pretty calm and reasonable through this whole thread (with the possible exception of Troll@aol who is unreasonable and certainly less than poignant in most of his remarks).


You're the one here making false claims about peoples ambitions, claims and intent.

Why oh why would an atheist "spend more time in church than you could possibly imagine" If you don't believe in God than why would you waste your time going to a place of worship dedicated to the very God you don't believe in? That make sno sense to me at all.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact is, it's not the relevant portion of the
> ideology that 'justified' the killing.

Unfortunately, history and the facts don't agree with your assertion.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Hardly, you have a very similar attitude
> towards
> > atheism that most religious whackos have.
>
> Please post an example of this. Are you saying
> that I might strap on a bomb and blow myself and
> others to smithereens? Am I likely to protest with
> signs reading "Atheists Hate Fags" or "Atheists
> hate Christians"? Do I believe in things with zero
> evidence or hope for the end of the world?

More generalizations and stereotypes. Big surprise there. Seems to be your only "point."

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The fact is, it's not the relevant portion of
> the
> > ideology that 'justified' the killing.
>
> Unfortunately, history and the facts don't agree
> with your assertion.


Then try to justify it. You'll find that you can't because it's a non sequitur.

come again? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why oh why would an atheist "spend more time in
> church than you could possibly imagine" If you
> don't believe in God than why would you waste your
> time going to a place of worship dedicated to the
> very God you don't believe in? That make sno
> sense to me at all.


I ask myself that question often, and so do many of the people I know at church, Priests and Pastors included.
Sometimes you do what you gotta do, until you can do something different.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> More generalizations and stereotypes. Big
> surprise there. Seems to be your only "point."


You used the term "religious whackos". In what sense then, were you referring to? What do you deem to be a "religious whacko"?
Is that term not a stereotype or generalization?

To me, that implies exactly the type of that I pointed out.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > More generalizations and stereotypes. Big
> > surprise there. Seems to be your only "point."
>
>
> You used the term "religious whackos". In what
> sense then, were you referring to? What do you
> deem to be a "religious whacko"?
> Is that term not a stereotype or generalization?
>
> To me, that implies exactly the type of that I
> pointed out.

Differnce is you see all religious types, or at least you tend to paint them this way on this forum, as "whackos."

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The fact is, it's not the relevant portion of
> > the
> > > ideology that 'justified' the killing.
> >
> > Unfortunately, history and the facts don't
> agree
> > with your assertion.
>
>
> Then try to justify it. You'll find that you can't
> because it's a non sequitur.

It already has been and the Stalin regime justified it in just that way.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > The fact is, it's not the relevant portion
> of
> > > the
> > > > ideology that 'justified' the killing.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, history and the facts don't
> > agree
> > > with your assertion.
> >
> >
> > Then try to justify it. You'll find that you
> can't
> > because it's a non sequitur.
>
> It already has been and the Stalin regime
> justified it in just that way.

Where has it been? In this thread?

You are making the claim and Stalin isn't here to defend it, it's incumbent upon you to support it. I've already mentioned why it doesn't follow:

Simply put, atheism and theism are only claims about a deity. They are not moral precepts. You can not derive an is/ought from them without presupposing some other metaphysical structure onto them.

I think you are simply assuming that because Stalin was an atheist therefore he justified X or Y based on *atheism*.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Differnce is you see all religious types, or at
> least you tend to paint them this way on this
> forum, as "whackos."


To me, "Whackos" implies a dangerous and insane characterization and although there are certainly those types out there, I don't perceive the typical religious person that way. I simply see them as delusional at worst, but mostly I believe them to be duped or just brainwashed. Both are mostly benevolent in nature and neither is meant as an insult, per say.

The ones that incite violence and oppression, deny civil rights to certain people, promote teaching creationism in schools and make political and legal decisions based on religion are more in the Whacko category to me and I will passionately fight against them.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > The fact is, it's not the relevant
> portion
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > ideology that 'justified' the killing.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, history and the facts don't
> > > agree
> > > > with your assertion.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then try to justify it. You'll find that you
> > can't
> > > because it's a non sequitur.
> >
> > It already has been and the Stalin regime
> > justified it in just that way.
>
> Where has it been? In this thread?
>
> You are making the claim and Stalin isn't here to
> defend it, it's incumbent upon you to support it.
> I've already mentioned why it doesn't follow:
>
> Simply put, atheism and theism are only claims
> about a deity. They are not moral precepts. You
> can not derive an is/ought from them without
> presupposing some other metaphysical structure
> onto them.
>
> I think you are simply assuming that because
> Stalin was an atheist therefore he justified X or
> Y based on *atheism*.

I am not assuming that. Stalin used atheism to control the population. He viewed religion as counter to his ideal communist society. Atheism was not only the preferred ethos, it was the imposed one. It was taught in schools. There was numerous anti-religious propoganda. And, as mentioned earlier, the execution of religious leaders. Atheism was an integral part of the Stalin regime and mandated upon the population.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not assuming that. Stalin used atheism to
> control the population. He viewed religion as
> counter to his ideal communist society. Atheism
> was not only the preferred ethos, it was the
> imposed one. It was taught in schools. There was
> numerous anti-religious propoganda. And, as
> mentioned earlier, the execution of religious
> leaders. Atheism was an integral part of the
> Stalin regime and mandated upon the population.


What is the 'ethos' of atheism?

You are avoiding the question and I think you know it.