Q:Before you make another comment along the lines of how that rhino hunter should be killed (dude, hypocrisy), you should know that the rhino chosen is old and weak, can no longer serve any purpose aside from being a live member of its species, and all the money spent on acquiring this right is being put toward conserving the species.
Q:Are you related to AZspot? You have the same genetic trait, a weak, easily manipulated brain.
Q:You really can't even see the irony of a white British man claiming to be African based on genetics is FUCKED UP, evolution aside? How deluded are you?
Do you even know how to read? He called himself an african ape. APE. African ape ≠ african man. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. Africa is the cradle of humankind. He was just pointing out that fact.
I genuinely don’t understand why people are getting so offended over this.
Q:I'm unfollowing you for your arrogance and attempt to distance yourself from your entire species. I'm sick and tired of finding a wonderful, scientific blog, only to have it degrade and generalize THEIR OWN ENTIRE RACE. You really must not be as scientifically minded as you believe if you feel the need to do that instead of educate.
I’m also a vegetarian and I like my orange juice with pulp
I deserve to die
Q:if you're so fucking smart how is it wrong and what would be the correct way you might put it.
Woah dude, relax.
Ok, first of all, mathematically speaking <3 simply means less than three.
The equation <3 = lim x→c f(x) = f(c) just says “less than three equals the limit of f(x) as x approaches c through the domain of f, and is equal to f(c)”.
So yeah, the limit does exist. You don’t need to be fucking smart to know that.
I don’t really know what would be the correct way to put it… maybe “♥=∞”?
I think I’m going to change my url.
…because my blog is not only about atheism. I like we-are-star-stuff (actually I hate hyphens but wearestarstuff is already taken). What do you guys think?
Edit- thank you all for your opinions!
Q:why havent you killed yourself yet?
Sometimes I see funny things on the internet.
Q:You seem like the kind of person who requires midol 24/7. You're so rude and unnecessary, and an awful example of an atheist. Though I as well don't believe in a God, I could never bring myself to put out the amount of hate that you do. Get some friends, it'll do you good.
Q:Hitler was a vegan and an atheist, just like you. :)
What the fuck did I just read?
First of all, Hitler never left the church. He was baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant and was a communicant and altar boy in his youth. In fact, he mentions his devotion to christianity numerous times in his writings. For example, he said, on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933: “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith .” In Mein Kampf, he wrote "I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our creator. By fighting off the jews. I am doing the lord’s work."
Anyway, it seems probable that Hitler, being the great manipulator, knew that he couldn’t fight the christian churches and their members right off the bat. So he made statements to put the church at ease and may have patronized religion as a way to prevent having to fight the christian-based church.
Douglas Krueger says that anecdotal evidence from those close to him near the end of his life suggests that he was a at least a deist, if not a theist. Krueger concludes: “So here’s what evidence we have. There is a certain worldview, Nazism. Its leader, Hitler, professes on many occasions to be religious, and he often states that he’s doing the will of god. The majority of his followers are openly religious. There is no evidence anywhere that this leader ever professed to anyone that he is an atheist. He and his followers actively campaign against atheism, even to the point of physical force, and this leader allies himself with religious organizations and churches. This is the evidence. So where does atheism fit in?”
Hitler was not an atheist. While he was materialist and rationalist in a lot of things, he also talked a lot about providence, as a sort of mystical force of fate, and he saw himself as somehow destined for victory even when the war was going badly for him, simply because of the purity of his purpose, his strenght of will, and his feeling of destiny.
About the vegan thing, Hitler was not a vegan, or a vegetarian. Hitler’s “vegetarianism” was a legend, a fiction invented by Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda. Hitler’s asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva Braun. His asceticism was fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men. By this outward show of asceticism, he could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact he was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic.
Not only did Hitler eat meat, he went so far as to outlaw organizations that advocated vegetarianism, and harshly rebuked all proposals to ease Germany’s food shortages that involved reductions in meat consumption.
If you define vegetarianism as including cooked ham and sausages, then sure, Hitler was a vegetarian. But you’d have to be a moron to adopt that definition in the first place.
Opponents of vegetarianism or atheism are always pointing to Hitler as an example “proving” how wrong-headed those philosophies are, but it’s just meaningless talk. By the reasoning used in these types of arguments, if you are truly anti-Hitler, you should smoke heavily and eat a lot of meat. I just pointed out that Hitler was actually a meat-eating believer. Does that mean that all meat eaters and believers are evil? Of course not. Hitler spoke german, too. Does that mean all german-speaking people are evil? Of course not.
The truth is that one person’s actions, no matter how insane, do not represent the philosophies of entire groups to which he may momentarily belong.
Anonymous asked: Hey so I had a question, how do yo account for the killings made by atheist leaders?You say that religion is responsible for most horrific killings in the history if mankind, but yet when you add up the killings made by Stalin, Hitler and Mao within just a century they outnumber the killings made in the name of religion.So using logic and reason we can say that Atheism is respnsible for the most killings in human history but also in the 20th century.
First of all, Hitler was not an atheist. He frequently referred to god and christianity in his various speeches and writings. He also talked a lot about “Providence”, or “Nature”, as a sort of mystical force of fate, and he saw himself as somehow destined for victory even when the war was going badly for him, simply because of the purity of his purpose, his strength of will, and his feeling of destiny. Some of his quotes and writings make it sound like he worshipped the German national identity; some make it seem like instead of god he worshipped or idealised or divinised Providence / Nature / Fate, with his glorious destiny assured no matter what; and in some ways it seems to me like he worshipped himself. It’s difficult to maintain that nazi ideology was atheistic when it explicitly endorsed and promoted christianity in the party platform. Communism and traditional socialism were both intensely hated by the nazi party which argued that, as atheistic and jewish ideologies, they threatened the future of both german and christian civilization. In this, most christians in Germany and elsewhere agreed and this explains much of the nazis popular support.
Now, about the second part of your question: how many people in communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism? None. How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments, and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren’t all of those people killed because of atheism, indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism?
No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn’t a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness.
People were killed in communist nations for a lot of different reasons. Some were communists who disagreed with those in power and were killed because of that. Some were anti-communists opposed the government and were killed for that. Some were simply in the way or inconvenient and were killed for that. These are political disagreements that people were being killed over, not murder in the name of atheism.
But weren’t a lot of people killed because they were christian? Certainly — but not simply because they were christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker’s paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. Once again, we are generally looking at political issues, not a question of atheism.
Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion: it is possible to be both an atheist and religious and some religions are themselves atheistic. Atheism also isn’t a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things — good or bad.
To understand this better, consider times in the past when religion has been involved with violence — the Inquisition would be good. How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism? None. Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of christian doctrines. The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The single belief of theism, however, did not.
Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism — which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself — did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened, which is utter nonsense.
The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion’s responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name.
Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can’t motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It’s been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist — unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences.
It’s difficult to say, though, how many of these problems are really inherent in the type of theism and how many are cultural products of the religious belief systems that incorporate them. Whatever culpability theism itself might have, it’s likely small enough to dismiss, allowing us to treat it and atheism as functionally equal in this context.