‘Mass’ Destruction? August 11, 2011

‘Mass’ Destruction?

David Hayward points out one of the most divisive weapons we’ve ever created:

The Bible isn’t the only problem, though. It’s any holy book. Or, more broadly, it’s anything dogmatic, anything that tells you “This is the Absolute Truth and anyone who disagrees is the enemy.”

(via nakedpastor)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Fredericka

    The FriendlyAlcoholic wrote, “anything dogmatic”

    Oh, I get it! That’s why Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin and Enver Hoxha were “No True Atheists”!

  • Edmond

    The Friendly “Alcoholic”?  Goodness Fredericka, that’s remarkably uncharitable.

    They were certainly atheists, but it was WRONG for them to enforce their dogmas through law or police action.   And they DID have dogmas.  Atheism was taught in schools, it was declared as official state policy, churches were forcibly closed, violence was used as a measure of intimidation.  They placed themselves as figureheads of worship and obedience.

    None of this advocated by today’s community of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics.  Religion shouldn’t be taught in schools at all, except perhaps as history or literature.  Governments should not endorse any official policies on religious belief.  Citizens should be free to assemble in churches, or to believe whatever they like.

    We only call for an EXAMINATION of religion.  We advocate questioning of questionable claims.  We discourage blind acceptance of scripture, though we would never advocate enforcing our position.  We seek only DIALOGUE to help open the eyes of those think they know what they cannot.  If they choose to end that dialogue, we respect their choice, and recognize that they are free to live as they wish.

    The FURTHEST we go with ANY kind of “enforcement” is in enforcing our nation’s separation of church and state.  As with your examples, it is wrong today for Christians to impose Christian rules onto society through law, or for them to structure society so that it excludes those of other faiths, or of no faith.  Society must be open to EVERYONE, and we will stand in the way of those who seek to seal any part of it off for themselves and their religion alone.

  • Fredericka

    Edmond wrote, “None of this advocated by today’s community of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics.”

    You need to get an education! Sam Harris, in his several books which are quite popular with atheists, declares an atheist right to pre-emptive violence against theists:  “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to
    kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but
    it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. . . There is, in fact, no talking to some people.
    If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people
    may be justified in killing them in self-defense.” (Sam Harris,
    ‘The End of Faith,’ pp. 52-53).

    This is the same old same old, the same atheist hatred that set up the gulags in Russia.

  • Rabid

    So did you read the book? Because if you did, you know exactly in what context Harris was talking about pre-emptive violence.
    If you didn’t, you should probably do more research next time someone claims Atheist X said Y. 30 seconds of google can be a wonderful tool.Here is his response to this particularly disingenuous quote mine for those who haven’t come across it. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2In the same vein, I could argue that anyone who is willing to kill to protect their children is on a slippery slope to gunning down people in the street because they dislike the colour of their shirt.Kindly find some original (or more entertaining) rhetoric for us to dissect or piss off.

  • Crax

    Wouldn’t a weapon of MASS-destruction be a science textbook? 😀 (Get it? It’s a pun. Anyone?)

  • Fredericka

    Hi Rabid, yes, I have read his books, and replied to them in detail:


    Harris is one of the scariest people around. He is no civil libertarian, that’s for sure. Do you realize he wants to put lie-detectors in the panelling of court-rooms? So much for the Fifth Amendment: ‘How do you plead?’ ‘Not guilty.’ ‘Bzzzzt!’  Instead of googling, read what he has to say, in context, and you’ll realize he’s serious about doing away with tolerance. That in itself perplexes. Why would a group which represents maybe 3% of the American public throw down the gauntlet to other ninety percent, and say, ‘That’s it! We’re no longer prepared to tolerate you people!’ What are you folks smoking? 

  • karl marx

    Weapons and the Bible of War!
    Nothing new! Psalm 144:1. talkind everything. Or Mathew 1:1. John 10:30. Genocide of God… To much Genocide We have in the Bible! Good book for Hitler, Stalin and Bush!!!

    Atheist 100%!!!

  • karl marx

    I liked to much Your Forum!
    Because You talking something about criminal Matter of the Bible!
    1. Bush with the Bible: 400.000 Nagasakis=Iraq,Afghanistan,Croatia,Serbia,Bosnia!!!
    2. Hitler with the Bible: Holocaust=50.000.000 Died!
    3. Stalin with the Bible:60.000.000 Russians died!
    4. Stalin&Hitler&Pavelic= Jesuits or catholic Brothers in Jesus!!!

         Atheist 100%!!!


error: Content is protected !!