Table of Contents
Frank B. Finite (a "true" atheist)
Alternate Resurrection Theory of the Month
Letters to the Editor
Issue 5
Letters Policy:
Basically the only thing we have to officially say is this, "Your letter may be directed to another member of the staff, rather than I, the Editor in Chief, answering it. This is done to insure that you get the most highly qualified answer that we can possibly give.
Also, sometimes I am on vacation every week or so.
And I, the Editor in Chief, reserve the right to edit all letters posted. Sometimes the "colorful" language has to be omitted or changed which would be distinguished by italicized (parenthesis) because it it causes nice elderly church ladies thump their Bibles too hard.
And with their fragile and delicate fingers, this causes considerable pain. And since we love and respect them dearly, we choose to save them from such pain so that they can continue to bake us cookies.
Your's truly,
The Editor in Chief.
frank,
I just read your bit about the crusades.
All of this bickering about who killed who might be a more happy occasion if you shored up your castle of arguments with a little perspective before you built it in the swamp of history.
The perspective is this: the Christians have a reason not to kill innocents therefore, when they do, it is a contradiction. Atheists, such as Stalin or Hitler, have no such prerogative.
They can slaughter by the millions with relative impunity from violating their idiom. So they may be bloody, but they are at least consistent.
beanfarmer
My dear fundy foe,
If I remember correctly you are the one who stated "adamic stock" last month. The boys down at the club got a big kick out of that one.
Anyway, in response to your last letter, I see that we are not so much in disagreement. But I'm afraid some swamp gas may be clouding your vision.
If we take into context (something you fundies are always trying to hammer home to us) of why I have been speaking on the subject of the crusades, we shall see that I am not arguing against what happened then, but rather what is relevant today.
It all fits into the framework of "arguing against a belief", and if can you use the crusades to argue against christianity.
For example, most fundies today state as you have that what the christians did in those times DID contradict the New Testament. And these fundies today are staying consistent with their belief.
But does what the christians did way back then invalidate the NT? Of coarse not. It just invalidates the christians of that time.
Now, if there are fundies today who say that there was nothing wrong with the crusades, they will indeed be seen as contradicting their belief in christianity. And this belief will probably invalidate said christians and nobody will give them the time of day.
Okay, now for my beloved fellow atheists . . .
I agree with your statement that Stalin and Hitler were being consistent with their belief, which is that the strong survive and as in nature anything goes, etc. But many of today's atheists are not quite as consistent.
Any atheists today who see nothing wrong with what Hitler and Stalin did are being consistent with the idea of atheism.
But many of today's atheists who argue that what Stalin and Hitler did was wrong are being INconsistent and contradictory with what atheism teaches (mind you I said what atheism teaches, not what some atheists teach).
This also goes for the crusades. And since the crusades don't argue against christianity, it is a bit of a waste of time to try and do so.
And if they're not going to be consistent, this will come back and bite all us atheists in the rear end- like a big ol' swamp rat.
It does not invalidate atheism, but it will more than likely invalidate many atheists which I do not want to see happen because I want people to be able to trust us to be consistent so that they will listen to what we have to say.
If people won't listen to us, we can't persuade them that atheism is truth.
But look at the data . . .
Today we have fundies claiming
crusades bad = consistent.
Today we have fundies claiming Hitler/Stalin bad = consistent.
Today we have atheists claiming
crusades bad = inconsistent.
Today we have atheists claiming Hitler/Stalin bad = inconsistent.
If this keeps up, my beloved atheism will sink as if in quicksand, and before you know it will be out of sight.
I hope this clears away the swamp gas (or whatever it is that is floating about).
Truthfully,
Frank B. Finite's brain
(a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning
of time, space and matter)
P.S. - Please call it "wetlands" instead of swamp. It sounds more romantic that way.