Debunking The Militant Atheists

[ding]

Atheists are right

About what? That it’s ok to subordinate religion?

Can you give examples of that please?

Oh wait - You mean like christians attacking Muslims and others who don't share their beliefs? That's what you mean, isn't it.

Sure. I can give you examples but it's a long read.

The Socialist Phenomenon

Yes, militant atheists condemning respect for people of faith would be exactly like that.

Yes, militant atheists condemning respect for people of faith would be exactly like that.

.
faith in what ... explain yourself.

God

God

.
you mean yourself ... that's your faith, try explaining what you are saying.

No. God. Militant atheists condemn respect for people who believe in God and attempt to subordinate their worship of God.

Not really, atheists just don’t believe God makes sense and want to be left alone

Sure. That's true for the vast majority of atheists. I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about the ones who are on a mission to subordinate religion.

Read this Religion Board on USMB.
Find me a thread where an Atheist started it to debunk religion.
What you will find is thread after thread started by Bible Thumpers to attack atheism

Seriously? I post here all the time. The majority of their posts are intended to be disrespectful.

So why is it so bad for me to say what it is?

Atheists on this board respond to attacks and there are a lot of them.
If you can’t stand the response, don’t start the thread

It goes both ways.

 

[ding]

"...It is especially easy for us to observe socialism's hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines.

contemporary socialism typically has an underlying 'ism' at its core, we know as 'atheism', and of course many neoatheists of today consider themselves exempt from the label religious, nothing could be farther from the truth however.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

 

[ding]

They took steps to end economic disparity, not end slavery.

Wrong.

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."


Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.


“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History


"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "


So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.



The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.


In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.


Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia



And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

 

[KokomoJojo]

they prepared humanity for the convergence of socialist ideology and militant atheism that took place at the end of the seventeenth century

By conflation, they use the label secular which in the final analysis is the religion of atheism written into law, mass social programming by force. Bigamy comes to mind.

churches have done what no government can ever do

They do it better generally.

Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

agreed.

Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance

also true.

faith in God before putting their faith in the state.

We know the state never tells us lies though!

Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion,

Which in fact results as the establishment of the atheist religion in law.

 

[rightwinger]

It goes both ways.

I think Christians are more threatened by atheists than the other way around.

Christians fear that atheists will convince them their beliefs are unfounded.
An atheist really doesn’t care

 

[KokomoJojo]

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

the Continental Congress had no authority to draft such a bill, vote on such a bill, and ultimately pass such a bill into law. Hence, while the Northwest Ordinance was on the books as a law from July 1787 to Aug - Sept 1789, it had no real legal standing, having been passed by a body without proper authority.

James Madison had strong views on whether the Congress had any constitutional authority to pass laws concerning the new territories:

• Congress has undertaken to do more: they have proceeded to form new states, to erect temporary governments, to appoint officers for them, and to proscribe the conditions on which new states shall be admitted to the confederacy. All this has been done; without the least color of constitutional authority (Federalist #38).

On the contrary, under the Constitution, Congress was allowed:

• To admit new States into the Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of Congress (Federalist 43).

Northwest Ordinance has no constitutional authority

candst.tripod.com

 

[ding]

It goes both ways.

I think Christians are more threatened by atheists than the other way around.

Christians fear that atheists will convince them their beliefs are unfounded.
An atheist really doesn’t care

As well they should be but not for the reason you provided.


The vast majority of people in the Russian empire were, at the time of the revolution, religious believers, whereas the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. "Science" was counterposed to "religious superstition" in the media and in academic writing. The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, synagogues etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designations were prohibited. In addition, religious institutions were not allowed to express their views in any type of mass media, and many religious buildings were demolished or used for other purposes. In the long run state atheism failed to convert many people. Religion strengthened underground and was revived to help fight the Second World War. It flourished after the fall of Communism. As Paul Froese explains:

Atheists waged a 70-year war on religious belief in the Soviet Union. The Communist Party destroyed churches, mosques, and temples; it executed religious leaders; it flooded the schools and media with anti-religious propaganda; and it introduced a belief system called “scientific atheism,” complete with atheist rituals, proselytizers, and a promise of worldly salvation. But in the end, a majority of older Soviet citizens retained their religious beliefs and a crop of citizens too young to have experienced pre-Soviet times acquired religious beliefs.[10]

Religion in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

the Continental Congress had no authority to draft such a bill, vote on such a bill, and ultimately pass such a bill into law. Hence, while the Northwest Ordinance was on the books as a law from July 1787 to Aug - Sept 1789, it had no real legal standing, having been passed by a body without proper authority.

James Madison had strong views on whether the Congress had any constitutional authority to pass laws concerning the new territories:

• Congress has undertaken to do more: they have proceeded to form new states, to erect temporary governments, to appoint officers for them, and to proscribe the conditions on which new states shall be admitted to the confederacy. All this has been done; without the least color of constitutional authority (Federalist #38).

On the contrary, under the Constitution, Congress was allowed:

• To admit new States into the Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of Congress (Federalist 43).

Northwest Ordinance has no constitutional authority

candst.tripod.com

Dude, if you want to ignore the truth and disparage the Founding Fathers, be my guest.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

Thats not true.
The constitution was ratified contingent to the inclusion of the BoR, hence the legal imperative 'Reserved Rights'. You want your constitution and permission to govern you first agree to enforce the following rights.

Reserved rights are outside their jurisdiction to adjudicate.

This guv was created with a 'conflict of interest' in which 'the guv' is a party to and judge of all cases involving the guv no different than the king

Your laughter doesnt change the facts, you will get more milage by successfully refuting it instead. Good luck.

 

[KokomoJojo]

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

the Continental Congress had no authority to draft such a bill, vote on such a bill, and ultimately pass such a bill into law. Hence, while the Northwest Ordinance was on the books as a law from July 1787 to Aug - Sept 1789, it had no real legal standing, having been passed by a body without proper authority.

James Madison had strong views on whether the Congress had any constitutional authority to pass laws concerning the new territories:

• Congress has undertaken to do more: they have proceeded to form new states, to erect temporary governments, to appoint officers for them, and to proscribe the conditions on which new states shall be admitted to the confederacy. All this has been done; without the least color of constitutional authority (Federalist #38).

On the contrary, under the Constitution, Congress was allowed:

• To admit new States into the Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of Congress (Federalist 43).

Northwest Ordinance has no constitutional authority

candst.tripod.com

Dude, if you want to ignore the truth and disparage the Founding Fathers, be my guest.

What truth do you think I am ignoring? From my pov you are ignoring the 'truth', most likely because you do not know what the truth is, few people do.

 

[ding]

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

Thats not true.
The constitution was ratified contingent to the inclusion of the BoR, hence the legal imperative 'Reserved Rights'. You want your constitution and permission to govern you first agree to enforce the following rights.

Yep, ignore what they said in their documented speeches.

 

[ding]

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

the Continental Congress had no authority to draft such a bill, vote on such a bill, and ultimately pass such a bill into law. Hence, while the Northwest Ordinance was on the books as a law from July 1787 to Aug - Sept 1789, it had no real legal standing, having been passed by a body without proper authority.

James Madison had strong views on whether the Congress had any constitutional authority to pass laws concerning the new territories:

• Congress has undertaken to do more: they have proceeded to form new states, to erect temporary governments, to appoint officers for them, and to proscribe the conditions on which new states shall be admitted to the confederacy. All this has been done; without the least color of constitutional authority (Federalist #38).

On the contrary, under the Constitution, Congress was allowed:

• To admit new States into the Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of Congress (Federalist 43).

Northwest Ordinance has no constitutional authority

candst.tripod.com

Dude, if you want to ignore the truth and disparage the Founding Fathers, be my guest.

What truth do you think I am ignoring? From my pov you are ignoring the 'truth', most likely because you do not know what the truth is, few people do.

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that. In fact I am just as happy for you to parse what I have written as that is a cultural Marxist tactic of critical theory.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Yep, ignore what they said in their documented speeches.

Yeh the law is how those speeches were executed, not the flowery words of the speech itself. What they tell you and what they do is 2 entirely different things.

You forget that slavery was most often used as an instrument of settling a debt, creating legal euphemisms and metaphors to bring it under the auspices of 'taxable' by legislation does not change its principal purpose.

If you know your history then you know the 14th amendment did not free the slaves, it merely exchanged it from private masters to to the public guv as masters, and instead of being limited to blacks, it enslaved everyone by wiping out the power of the people, by converting your reserved rights to privileges.

Lets not forget there were many 'black' slaveowners and they fought on the side of the south!

 

[anynameyouwish]

"The Bible is evidence"

The militant atheist desire to subordinate and abolish religion is evidence.

"The militant atheist desire to subordinate and abolish religion is evidence."


I know of NO "militant" atheist.

The only atheists I know are "live and let live" atheists who don't care if you believe in god or not.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that. In fact I am just as happy for you to parse what I have written as that is a cultural Marxist tactic of critical theory.

So you condemn me because I exclude the meaningless fluff and drive right to your point.

You can feel free to demonstrate I am wrong, good luck with that.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The only atheists I know are "live and let live" atheists who don't care if you believe in god or not.

Unfortunately that has not been my experience with them.

 

[BreezeWood]

That it’s ok to subordinate religion?

Its impossible to subordinate something everyone has. I think you are looking for religion other than their own, which is accurate.

religion is a fairy tale

So you consider your belief system and habits as a result of that belief system a "fairy tale"?

They condemn respect for people of faith.

All people are people of faith, bar none.

There are something like 4000 gods and countless religions.

4001 when you include atheism.

Religious beliefs are not sacred cows...

You think not? Challenge someones religion and see what happens.

your denial of theistic socialism and secular humanism as a weapon disguised as your religious beliefs,

It takes much more than a few words to know its a disguise.

There are plenty to choose from and IM(atheist)O, they're all equal and should have equal rights.

If you believe the constitution that all religions have equal rights.

Not really, atheists just don’t believe God makes sense and want to be left alone

Ive known several evangelistic atheists pounding the streets preaching atheism.

- is phony ... a protection provided by common law.

religion is a 'reserved right' in which the agreement between the guv and the people was memorialized om the BoR.

- is phony ... a protection provided by common law.

religion is a 'reserved right' in which the agreement between the guv and the people was memorialized om the BoR.

.
"memorialized" ... really, that's new - from when, the 4th century, maybe you might think that one over a little.

for the record, phony usually does not stand up in a court of law - except by the corrupt judges that are appointed by the phonies to begin with ...

- are phony religions admissible under the bill of rights ...

 

[ding]

Yep, ignore what they said in their documented speeches.

Yeh the law is how those speeches were executed, not the flowery words of the speech itself. What they tell you and what they do is 2 entirely different things.

You forget that slavery was most often used as an instrument of settling a debt, creating legal euphemisms and metaphors to bring it under the auspices of 'taxable' by legislation does not change its principal purpose.

If you know your history then you know the 14th amendment did not free the slaves, it merely exchanged it from private masters to to the public guv as masters, and instead of being limited to blacks, it enslaved everyone by wiping out the power of the people, by converting your reserved rights to privileges.

Lets not forget there were many 'black' slaveowners and they fought on the side of the south!

I understand the 14th very well and the misapplication thereafter. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

 

[ding]

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that. In fact I am just as happy for you to parse what I have written as that is a cultural Marxist tactic of critical theory.

So you condemn me because I exclude the meaningless fluff and drive right to your point.

You can feel free to demonstrate I am wrong, good luck with that.

No, I don't condemn you. That's what you are doing.

I already have demonstrated you are wrong by laying out the historical facts. All fact, no fluff.

 

[ding]

"The Bible is evidence"

The militant atheist desire to subordinate and abolish religion is evidence.

"The militant atheist desire to subordinate and abolish religion is evidence."


I know of NO "militant" atheist.

The only atheists I know are "live and let live" atheists who don't care if you believe in god or not.

That's good.