Religion Must Be Destroyed, Atheist Alliance Declares

CNSNews.com ^ | October 03, 2007 | By Matt Purple

[scott7278]

This must have been a gathering of the outreach arm of the Atheist Alliance. :)

Seriously, though, if there is no God, then why be worried about having to destroy religion? The earthly answer is that it interferes with their vision of a socialist utopia.

Not all atheists are socialists, mind you, but the movement is being used to that end. It’s sad that the people who bemoan the “oppression” that religion brings will be the oppressors if given the chance. History proves this.

[scottdeus12]

“Jews are religious by birth. How ya’ gonna make that omelet?Hmmmmmmmmmm?”

Not sure why you posted this to me, but I’ll take a stab at it.....

Jews aren’t religious by birth, that’s an individual decision one must make....And I have no idea wht the omoelet comment means.....

[Pontiac]

The convention also experienced frequent technical difficulties, particularly during Dawkins' Powerpoint slideshow.

When asked what the main difference between believers and atheists was, Dawkins had a quick answer: "Well, we're bright."

Well maybe atheists just have a weakness in the ability to use computers.

[N3WBI3]

"Well, we're bright."

LOL Einstein believed in God and its his work in physics that Atheist hang their hat on to say there is no God. Most of them are not fit, intellectually, to lick Einsteins shoes but because he believes in God hes not bright?

[Turret Gunner A20]

Look out or you will be accused of believing in Intelligent Design or Creation — the ultimate heresy to the fanatical evolutionists amongst us.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

If you've been taught by athiests, what's to stop you from taking the next step and becoming a communist dictator and murdering 100 million people?

That's just it - there's NOTHING to prevent a person, raised, schooled, and indoctrinated in atheism, from being utterly selfish and evil.

Yes yes, I know, atheists such as many here on FR argue that you can be moral and be an atheist, which is true. It is true because they, as atheists, are ethical scavengers - glomming onto the moral/ethical system of Judeo-Christianity. Without that initial cultural and societal overlay, the atheist has no checks on his or her behaviour.

[goldstategop]

I believe in God and love Him with all my heart, with all my soul and with all my might. The fools who do reject Him, do not see the things He does for us and of His comforting presence in our lives. He's helped me more than I can ever say. The beginning of wisdom is God. The enemy of wisdom are those that reject all we know to be true since the beginning of time.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Campion]

For being "bright," these people sure don't have any ability to reason beyond slogans. They can't even follow their own arguments to their logical conclusions:

1. Religions are bad because they kill and oppress people.
2. Religion must be wiped out.
3. In particular, children must not be raised with any religious faith.
4. And when religious people object to #2 and #3, and are willing to give their lives if necessary to fight them, atheists will be forced to resort to [blank] and [blank] those religious people.

You get an "A" if you fill in the blanks with "killing" and "oppressing".

And the conclusion therefore must be that militant atheism, which decries killing and oppression but implicitly promises to commit more of the same, is as bad as any religion, and probably more arrogant and hypocritical.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Although Crystal Clear Atheism was well-attended, it received little publicity and media attention. The convention also experienced frequent technical difficulties, particularly during Dawkins' Powerpoint slideshow.....But they are a proudly elitist and self-certain minority. When asked what the main difference between believers and atheists was, Dawkins had a quick answer: "Well, we're bright."

"Christians can work PowerPoint."

[TexasCajun]

I was expecting a Christopher Hitchens article.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

"Many of the attendees seemed to have developed an aversion to religion from conservative, Protestant Christians."

This is what personally have observed. A lot of angry atheists (because not all atheists are angry) believe that they were brought up in strict, ultra-devout, 'Puritanical' Christian families. Something happened, and now they have an axe to grind against Christians and Christianity.

Ironically, those atheists do not seem to see that they've picked atheism not out of reason or rational deliberation, but out of anger and hate toward what they believe is Christianity.

[razorbak]

During America’s early years, when Thomas Paine went on a similar anti-Christian crusade, Ben Franklin told him, “Tom, when a man spits into the wind, he spits in his own face.”

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

This is what personally have observed. A lot of angry atheists (because not all atheists are angry) believe that they were brought up in strict, ultra-devout, 'Puritanical' Christian families. Something happened, and now they have an axe to grind against Christians and Christianity.

My personal observations have been that the unbelieving tend to have formerly been Catholics. I guess it all depends on where you live.

[ari-freedom]

Atheism is just a survival strategy to perpetuate Dawkins’ selfish genes.

[Dr. Thorne]

They need to answer these three questions:

1. Where did the matter that makes up the Universe come from and when did it first exist?

2. If the Universe is infinite, describe "infinity" in scientific detail. If the Universe is not infinite, what lies beyond it's borders?

3. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that complex systems eventually become simpler systems, how did life (an inarguably more complex and fragile system than non-life) begin, overcome entropy and flourish?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[pnh102]

Religion Must Be Destroyed, Atheist Alliance Declares

Did this group consult the Allied Atheist Allegiance to get their take? There could be drama if they didn't!

[Berlin_Freeper]

“Science must ultimately destroy organized religion, according to some of the leading atheist writers and intellectuals...”

Science can destroy a lot of things, but when all the dust is settled faith will still be there.

[Cable225]

"It wasn't easy [telling my parents I was an atheist]," one said. "I still haven't entirely told them. I just say I'm a humanist, which they don't seem to mind."

My oldest daughter (who is 23) has run that 'I don't believe in God' line by me on a few occasions and my answer is always the same -

'That's OK kid, He believes in you'.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Dear Richard,
Please try to see beyond the anti-intellectual boundaries of that little community college in England you embrace as the center of all knowledge and ask yourself less comfortable but more fundamental questions. For example, why do you exist, at all? Why does anything exist? What is the purpose of a universe, any universe? Is there more than one? How do you know? What existed before the ‘Big Bang’, (if that’s the particular origin of the universe scientific argument that you believe)? Regarding your particular field of study, evolutionary biology, is human aggression a selected trait? If so, could that be contributing to the troubles in the world that we have experienced over the centuries instead of religious beliefs that encourage ‘turning the other cheek’? If aggression provides a selective advantage to the individual, but is deleterious to the survival of the group (i.e. human beings) how does evolutionary pressure apply to the ‘group’? In it’s purest sense doesn’t the concept of evolution connote the survival and thus passing of advantageous traits to progeny via genes (with perhaps some epigenetic contribution at times)? If so, do you not admit that the advent of civilization and the suppression of primitive aggressions in humanity has been the result of philosophical progress and not due to a ‘group’ alteration in genes? Have not religious principles contributed to that philosophical progress? Could not ‘philosophical progress’ be described alternatively as ‘spiritual progress’? If you are not willing to admit that, would you be so arrogant as to go across campus at your institution and tell the Philosophy Dept. faculty that they are charlatans and that there is no meaning to philosophical argument because it can’t be ‘objectively’ tested? If you aren’t willing to do that then how can you dismiss the religious philosophies of others? You’re kind of amusing, Richard, in a predictable sort of way.

[stevio]

I wonder why people who don’t believe in the afterlife, waste their time on Earth on something like this.