Critiques of Atheism

[Safe-Keeper]

So the locals claimed they could see Mary in the smoke as the building burned to the ground? That's sad. If she would have just gotten there a few minutes sooner, she probably could have put out the fire and saved the building.

 

[yomero]

1. Church burns down.
2. Motorcycle gets stolen.
3. Atheists are responsible (for deliberately witholding any additional information that might cast a negative shade on their system of belief).

That is a flawless sylogism, if I ever saw one. I'm sure you won't mind if I use your kind of logic to determine the motive behind such heinous act. OK, here I go:

1. Atheists eat babies.
2. This particular atheist starts a fire to cook baby.
3. Fire gets out of control and burns church.

In no way can evil heathen atheists claim innocence arguing that the arson was unintentional. I'm sure there are logical premises that prove your collective guilt, It's just that I haven't worked them out yet.

 

[Tatyana]

From Kerrang!

Count Grishnackh (real name Varg Vikernes) - the erstwhile Burzum musician who is currently serving a 21-year jail sentence for murdering Mayhem guitarist Oystein 'Euronymous' Aarseth and setting fire to three churches in 1993 - has been denied parole by the Norwegian justice system for the second time.

Officials say that his escape from jail five years ago and ties with neo-Nazi groups have affected his chances of an early release.

I would also check if the arsonist was into Norwegian Black Metal.

They love to burn churches and kill people.

 

[PS13]

The honor goes to a dude who burned to the ground a wooden chapel built in 1897 as a consequence of a disclosure made by a young woman who claimed having seen an apparition of Virgin Mary in the woods near the place she lived. She said that Virgin Mary appeared to her 23 times between 1892 and 1895. That excited the local folks busy and they built a wooden chapel in the location that Virgin Mary frequented probably because it was a good place to pick up mushroom. However, the local bishop refused to bless the chapel and set up a commission that questioned the young woman to find out if she wasn't a nutcase. (Virgin Mary? What kind of nonsense is that, right?)

It took the Church a hundred years to conclude the case, and the small chapel was finally blessed in 1990 and became the official shrine.

Some locals claimed that in a particular moment, the shape of the smoke bellowing from the burning chapel looked like Virgin Mary.

The news article doesn't mention the reason why the arsonist tossed the match. That's probably because it was obvious: There is no scientific evidence that the Heavens exist and therefore no Heavens, no chapel. That only documents the omniscience of our dear Heavenly Father who inspired man to built churches made of stone.

http://zpravy.idnes.cz/mladik-se-pr...nim-1c5-/krimi.asp?c=A100823_194547_krimi_jba

(Sorry about the tongue. The Tower of Babel, you know . . .)

Congratulations, epix... !

You're the first person here that I'm going to put on 'Ignore'.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Hey, this reminds me of a joke:

I prefer:

"I was raised a christian when I was a kid and constantly prayed to get a bike.

Then I understood how the system works,
so I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness"

 

[bozman]

I wonder if epix ever stepped foot in that old church or even gave it more than second glance when it was around.

Epix, you need to learn to relax. God obviously didn't see it as being important enough to protect or anything, why should you care so much? Let's look at the bright side here; nobody died in the fire (although I can't say that with absolute certainty because the article you linked looks like its written in some form of Klingon). Anyway, it's not like he burned down the Vatican or something. Sheesh.

 

[fuelair]

Yeah, any evidence it was an atheist? Maybe it was an agnostic. A Muslim. A Hebrew. A Pastafarian.
In Norway some churches were burned by satanists, you know.

Or a member of pretty much any protestant group - especially fundies. None of those I know of are mariologists (the term iirc for followers/worshippers of j's mommie).

 

[fuelair]

I think it was Christopher Hitchens who stated something along the lines of, and I paraphrase heavily: "I would not despoil their churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, if for no other reason than they'll get around to it themselves. "

If he didn't, he should have!!

 

[epix]

I really try hard not to accuse people of pure trollery, you never know when it is a child or a non-native English speaker making a claim. But I honestly have to make an exception here. You can't possibly be that stupid and be able to compose a post at the same time.

No god believers ever sin? Riiiight.

I never claimed that. Stop fantasizing, willya? I only said that religious folks, namely the Roman Catholics, go by "You shall not steal." That's in addition to "...or you go to prison" that is reserved for the atheists, but it applies to the theists as well. So the theists have two negative reinforcements for breaking the law and that makes them less likely to say hi to the jury.

You need to understand the difference between burning down a place of worship and stealing underpants with "I'm an atheist and proud of it" on it. You put sins into one bag. You need to learn to see differences, otherwise your will see the world painted in atheist grey forever and ever. That will also limit your ability to defend your position, coz there is no Grey Herring fallacy, is there?

Actually there is: I just re-read your scribble.

 

[epix]

You're the first person here that I'm going to put on 'Ignore'.

Oh, Lord! My punishment is more than I can bear.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I never claimed that. Stop fantasizing, willya? I only said that religious folks, namely the Roman Catholics, go by "You shall not steal." That's in addition to "...or you go to prison" that is reserved for the atheists, but it applies to the theists as well. So the theists have two negative reinforcements for breaking the law and that makes them less likely to say hi to the jury.

Then we should expect to see a higher percentage of the atheist population incarcerated compared to the theist population. But we don't.

You need to understand the difference between burning down a place of worship and stealing underpants with "I'm an atheist and proud of it" on it.

I'm sorry, do you have any evidence that the arsonist is an atheist?

You put sins into one bag. You need to learn to see differences, otherwise your will see the world painted in atheist grey forever and ever. That will also limit your ability to defend your position, coz there is no Grey Herring fallacy, is there?

How broad a brush does one use to apply "atheist gray"?

 

[The Norseman]

I prefer:

"I was raised a christian when I was a kid and constantly prayed to get a bike.

Then I understood how the system works,
so I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness"

Someone has that sigged here on the forum, I think. And I agree, it's awesome!




Just ran across this from a casual Google:

KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA (Worthy News)-- Arsonists in Malaysia attacked a fourth church in the capital Kuala Lumpur after a High Court decision to end a government ban on the use of the word "Allah" by non-Muslims, church officials said.

Bishop Philip Loke told reporters that two firebombs were believed to have been thrown at his Good Shepherd Lutheran Church early Saturday, January 9, but missed the glass windows, hitting the building wall instead.

Earlier on Friday, January 8, Muslims protested at mosques and later arson attacks were reported on three other churches in Kuala Lumpur.

The three-story Pentecostal Metro Tabernacle Church was worst hit as its first-floor office was reportedly completely destroyed in a blaze a little after midnight. No injuries were reported.

The attacks were sparked by a December 31 court ruling that allowed a Catholic newspaper The Herald to use the word Allah, in reference to God, in its Malay-language editions.

Father Lawrence Andrew, the editor of The Herald, defended his paper's decision to challenge the government ban on the use of Allah by non-Muslims. "We have been using the word Allah for a long, long time," he said in an interview.

linky


So, no hide nor hair of the eevul atheists. Sounds like some nasty religious internecine fighting to me.

Guess their various bibles and korans told them it was okay to express their ire in such a manner irrespective of the various anti-arson laws on the books...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I never claimed that. Stop fantasizing, willya?

You said your reason for assuming atheists were the culprits here was the actions would be a sin ergo the culprit is not a theist. How about you think more carefully about the faulty logic you've used to conclude this theif was an atheist.

I only said that religious folks, namely the Roman Catholics, go by "You shall not steal." That's in addition to "...or you go to prison" that is reserved for the atheists, but it applies to the theists as well. So the theists have two negative reinforcements for breaking the law and that makes them less likely to say hi to the jury.

Nice hypothesis. Too bad it's been disproved thousands, nay millions of times.

You need to understand the difference between burning down a place of worship and stealing underpants with "I'm an atheist and proud of it" on it. You put sins into one bag. You need to learn to see differences, otherwise your will see the world painted in atheist grey forever and ever.

You need to learn how to collect and evaluate evidence. If you want to make this claim you need more than your personal view of the world. How about looking for the data: who is more likely to burn down a place of worship in the US, a theist or an atheist. The data might surprise you.


Detailed fire fighting study of arsonists

The NCAVC reviewed arson research literature, actual arson cases, and interviewed incarcerated arsonists across the nation. As a result, the following motive classifications consistently appear and prove most effective in identifying offender characteristics:
1. Vandalism
2. Excitement [includes serial arson (psychological)]
3. Revenge [includes personal, institutional, group, and societal targets of the revenge]
4. Crime Concealment
5. Profit
6. Extremist

Feel free to sift through this very extensive report on each of these categories to find some data supporting your logic that a church burner is more likely to be an atheist than a theist. I suggest the opposite is true. Most atheists are apathetic about churches, whereas a theist might have a personal issue with a specific congregation.

That will also limit your ability to defend your position, coz there is no Grey Herring fallacy, is there?

Actually there is: I just re-read your scribble.

This makes little sense except the part you recognize I'm right.

 

[epix]

Uh...it does exactly that. You clearly didn't read the link and/or you are a troll:

That's why I didn't scroll (two different species). I checked only a few denominations on the list. I just couldn't imagine that someone would include Atheists in the population of different religious orientations. I guess Atheism is generally perceived as a religion. There is surely a reason for that.

But that doesn't matter. The stat shows that Catholics are the most felonious folks, and it's about time to remove the Book of Revelation from the Bible. Those 156 Atheists were found guilty probably because the jury was composed of theists and the witnesses -- all theists as well -- lied to the court.

Did you catch the note on the bottom of the list?

Suppose that a religious group creates 10 percent of a population. A research done by the Justice Department shows that the members of this religious group create 10% of the overall inmate population. You can conclude that the doctrine of that system of belief very likely doesn't affect the chances that a member of the religious group breaks the law, right?

Now, here is the note:

Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%).

Is the statement true or false?

 

[DC]

The article said that the arsonist stole a motorcycle. Since the theists go by "You shall not steal," I concluded that the arsonist was an atheist with no moral barrier between him and and other people's property. A chapel went up in smoke; he stole . . . it looked like the dude was an atheist, not a theist

going by that judgment, there are no theists on this planet.
I also wonder how people that claim to really believe in God and Satan heaven and hell, judgment day and all that stuff, could violate any of the commandments ever, especially when you see priests abusing children and other priests covering their crimes and sins.
But then, jails are filled with people claiming to believe in god, street gang members that ware Jesus tattoos with pride.

One could claim they don't live up to what they claim to believe. but still that would not make them Atheists.

and when the only thing that prevents you from stealing and murdering, is eternal suffering in hell, i have to question your moral standard anyway....

 

[bozman]

Wait a minute, you guys! I just realized something. He said the arsonist stole a motorcycle. Not a car. Not a bike. And not a scooter. I hate to admit it, but that's an atheist.

Damn you, epix! You may have won this time, but I'll be back!

 

[fuelair]

You said your reason for assuming atheists were the culprits here was the actions would be a sin ergo the culprit is not a theist. How about you think more carefully about the faulty logic you've used to conclude this theif was an atheist.



Nice hypothesis. Too bad it's been disproved thousands, nay millions of times.

You need to learn how to collect and evaluate evidence. If you want to make this claim you need more than your personal view of the world. How about looking for the data: who is more likely to burn down a place of worship in the US, a theist or an atheist. The data might surprise you.


Detailed fire fighting study of arsonists

Feel free to sift through this very extensive report on each of these categories to find some data supporting your logic that a church burner is more likely to be an atheist than a theist. I suggest the opposite is true. Most atheists are apathetic about churches, whereas a theist might have a personal issue with a specific congregation.


This makes little sense except the part you recognize I'm right.

Historically, if you remove the Rusian and Chinese communists (technically atheist governments - but actually mostly so to have more full control than they could if they allowed any real religious power) then historically most church destruction tended to be by reps (official and unofficial) of other religions - very often of ones that had split with the one being destroyed or the reverse. Regardless, for random ones like that pretty much (a phrase that means I have honestly never heard of a case where the arsonist/destroyer was clearly identified as an agnostic/atheist) all I have ever heard was either they were religious, were thought to be religious or nothing about their own religion was mentioned in accounts I was aware of. Anecdotal obviously, but...

 

[epix]

Then we should expect to see a higher percentage of the atheist population incarcerated compared to the theist population. But we don't.

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

"Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%)."

That's because 21 is less than 16 and 8.


www.holysmoke.org
Sniff...sniff...smells like a chapel is burning.

 

[Madalch]

That's because 21 is less than 16 and 8.

You don't see the decimal point there? 0.21% is not 21%.

 

[catsmate]

Congratulations, epix... !

You're the first person here that I'm going to put on 'Ignore'.

You don't visit the Conspiracy Theories forum much, do you?