Militant Atheists work for the Jews

[brandon dean]

oh man... haha you don't have to tell me the holocaust is a jewish fairy tale.  I've written quite a few articles on that subject.

like I said, I'm not defending jews, but I grew up around a lot of them, and have considered many my friends.  in fact, one of my best friends is from a secular jewish family who are not religious at all, but still consider themselves jews.  fuck no not all of them are angels.  I still say it's not a race, but a culture.  they welcome any person of any faith, as long as said person will suck their ass.  and I'm not saying only their elite are responsible for evil.  that lady is NOT from an average jewish family.  I've known many families of jews, and I'm here to tell you none of them were ever into blood sacrifice or rituals of any kind.  

I am not saying jews as a whole have no negative cultural traits.  of course they do.  but so do many other cultures.  in fact, many of the things you say ring true when I think about the jews I have known, and I had furthermore already considered them.  I really am interested in new perspectives, especially when they show intelligence and knowledge of history.  I do not agree with some of the ways you feel, but I don't agree with everything anyone says.  I am not offended by an opinion.

after WWII, the jews were actually forcefully removed to palestine.  I wasn't referring to the fake hollowcost.  the zionist jews forced the poor jews to emigrate to palestine.  they couldn't force the iranian jews a couple decades later, so they tried to bribe them.  the only reason they wanted jews in palestine was to legitimize their secular movement with religion and biblical precedent, when they could give a shit about biblical precedent.  I agree wholeheartedly that international jewry were the only victors AND instigators of both WWI and WWII.  but I also make a separation between international jewry, secular non-zionist jews, and religious jews.  that's just the way I see it based on personal experience.

not all jews follow the talmud.  there are two talmuds, the occidental and the babylonian.  many follow the occidental, including sephardics, and ethiopian jews don't follow either.  besides that, the babylonian talmud was censored not only for "goys" but also for common jews.  secular jews have no desire to peruse religious texts, and therefore few are even aware of the trash in the uncensored babylonian talmud.  there's a reason they are secular.  I've heard many many secular jews talk mad shit about the jewish religion, and go on long tirades about how retarded jewish ceremonies are.  look at david cole, who made sure to point out in the beginning of his auschwitz video that he was jewish in culture only, and that he was an atheist.  and he was like the benedict arnold of zionists--not because he rejected judaism, but because he denied their fantasy massacre.  honestly, most jews I've known remind me somewhat of david cole.  kinda cocky and self-assured, not relgious, and a little materialistic.

to tell the truth, I'm not really concerned with the talmud beyond the fact that it proves jewish hatred for christianity is age-old.  the mentality level of the talmud is about that of a mentally retarded, but spoiled, 7th grader.  I am far more concerned with the protocols, honestly...

the past suffering of the jews I was referring to was them being booted out of over 70 countries in the last thousand years, and the instances of mass burning of jews, which did happen when people finally got fed up with their shit.  they were forced into small communities many times, but the rich jews always seemed to find a way around these obstacles.  I'd call that a little suffering.  what I'm saying is that it seems to me to be the acts of their leaders, as opposed to the common jew, which brought these acts down upon them.  and the rich jews who could flee the pogroms, or pay a baron to keep peddling his goods after he left, always seemed to be the ones who were responsible for the blood sacrifices and usury.  

trust me, there are many jews without much money.  I personally know, and have known, many.

and yes, culturally, whether secular or relgious, jews are taught to grab whatever they can with no consideration of anyone else besides jews.  but this doesn't prove they are all in on the conspiracy to enslave mankind, or even contribute to it.  it is a cultural deficiency.

I never said all sephardics are angels.  I would never say that about any group of people.  any time you group people together, they are open to stereotypes and generalities.  when dealing with individuals, it is much more complicated.  yes, there are many sephardic criminals and zionists, but that does not change the FACT that jews lived side by side with their arab and muslim neighbors (and rulers) for two thousand years in places like palestine and iran.

my point is that zionism is only a modern name for an age-old phenomenon.  they could care less about idealism, only power.  if a rabbi wants in on the scam, all he has to do is pay the piper, just like everyone else.  I am also saying that the elite jews will ride the back of "judaism" until it no longer suits their purposes.  they will abandon israel in a heartbeat if they are cornered and that's the only way out.  then they will regroup in another place and another time and try again.

if I were raised jewish, I would definitely feel the need to repudiate the religion simply for all the things that have been done in its name.  I hope that makes clear my position on this.

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

I think the moral depravity of the Jews is clearly illustrated with the holoco$t fable that they use as justification to rape, rob, murder and kill as they please. That's just the worst truth to it and they should never be forgiven for that.

[brandon dean]

I think the moral depravity of the Jews is clearly illustrated with the holoco$t fable that they use as justification to rape, rob, murder and kill as they please. That's just the worst truth to it and they should never be forgiven for that.

I'm pretty much in agreement on that.  especially the ones who profit from the fairy tale.  this is one of the worst travesties the world has ever known, and I'm almost embarrassed for all the zombies who watch schindler's fist and don't laugh when they see a german car driving on a road paved out of jewish tombstones.  that movie is so ridiculous it makes me want to puke.  I feel your anger, my friend...

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

Imagine, for a second, what US would look like if jewish overlords were replaced with muslim ones. Would we be better or worse off? Yeah, it's a graduated scale of how fucked we'd be but there's no doubt in my mind that we'd be even worse than we are right now...

I'm curious Mikewb, do you still actually believe this?  :wtf:  If muslims in charge since 2001 no 9/11, no wars, no usury, and Israel would have been leveled long ago. But you believe the U.S. would be worse off because...? I mean really, just think about it, that makes no sense what-ever. It sounds as if you like Jews better than Muslims when you say things like that. And really there's not a single reason in the world to like a Jew more than a Muslim, not one.

jews don't have any good qualities at all. I can't think of any. What they are good at making money, good businessmen? That's not a good attribute, that is just their avaricious nature in plain view. And it's not because they are smarter, as you seem to think, but it has more to do with their aggressiveness & networking/teaming up with other Jews, shameless self-promotion and of course they don't live by any moral code so less than honorable tactics to get their way is not something they'll hesitate in doing. They enact the same corrupt principles in the realms of banking and business that they do in media, politics, academia and medicine -- "nothing is true, everything is permitted", "money is god, gentiles are cattle".They undermine traditional life and deracinate society -- tear out the roots. Though I'll admit the Jew is nothing if not clever.

[Brandyman]

In early 2008, before I came back to the study of conspiratorial history, I read everything on Earl Doherty's website (search "The Jesus Puzzle"). Found his lay scholarship very convincing that Jesus never existed as a historic person. Has anyone here studied his work? He's an atheist but not in the asshole-militant category of the populars. I was an evangelical Christian from age 15 till about 21 (going back some years as I'm now 50) but always tried to keep up on the historicity aspect.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Monkey Boy's admission that he is the militant Judaic-inspired atheist.

The bipolar behaviour was likely an attempt to win a few "friends" before he unleashed his real agenda.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

It all started in France... Marxists love Atheism... always have...  

http://www.marxists.org/history/france/ ... /index.htm

-----------

The French Eighteenth Century to the Revolution

Between 1700 and 1750 thousands of atheistic clandestine manuscripts circulated across Europe (although still only read by a very small minority), and the controversy ignited by Pierre Bayle over the possibility of a society of virtuous atheists continued to rage, despite the fact that no (or barely any) avowed atheists could yet be identified. However, the first declared philosophical atheists would soon come forth.



Presentation of Mahometan Credentials, or The Final Resource of the French Atheist, 1793.

(hand-coloured etching) by Gillray, James (1757-1815) © Courtesy of the Warden and Scholars of New College, Oxford/ The Bridgeman Art Library.

Various histories of atheism have claimed a range of French thinkers, ranging from Fontenelle (1657-1757), Saint-Evremond (1610-1703), Freret (1688-1749), Montesquieu (1689-1755), Voltaire (1694-1778), Meslier (1664-1729), La Mettrie (1709-1751), D'Alembert (1717- 1783), Diderot (1713-1784), Rousseau (1712-1778) and Robespierre (1758- 1794) (amongst other luminaries of the French Enlightenment) for the atheist camp. However, there were fewer philosophical atheists in the French Enlightenment than those histories employing a broad definition of atheism often suggest - most of these cannot be counted as atheists on the narrower (modern) definition of atheism and are better described as deists, even (as in the case, for example, of Diderot) if they had atheistic - or quasi-atheistic - phases.

Some, however, must certainly be counted as affirmed atheists, beginning with Meslier. Meslier died in 1729, leaving behind him a testament in which he made what many see as a very clear declaration of atheism. Meslier would be followed by La Mettrie (1709-1751), author of the celebrated Man-Machine (L'Homme machine 1747), and most famously Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789), whose System of Nature (Systeme de la nature 1770) is generally regarded as the original and paradigmatic manual of philosophical atheism. The System defended an uncompromising mechanistic materialism, from which d'Holbach derived a comprehensive atheistic worldview and a fully naturalistic morality. As Schroeder has noted, the System basically took over the older forms of anti-religious argument found in the clandestine manuscripts and other atheist works, synthesising and improving the older arguments and definitively taking atheism out of the obscurity of the anonymous clandestine literature and into public life.[1]

As scholars of early atheism have shown, the materialism of eighteenth century French atheism was indebted to the materialism of the anonymous authors of the clandestine manuscripts. The physician La Mettrie gave the idea of humans as mere mechanisms perhaps its most celebrated formulation in his Man Machine of 1747, in which he argued that the soul could be reduced without remainder to the physical organisation of the brain and body since the functions of the soul were completely dependent on the latter. La Mettrie's materialism rested on his medical study of human beings; however, it has also been shown by scholars that he owed much intellectually to the clandestine tradition.

The materialism of the French atheists was monistic: in conscious opposition to Cartesian dualism, human beings were not defined as thinking substances but rather as highly complex organisations of matter. Since French materialism rejected any sort of divine lawgiver, the basis of morality was established on purely human utilitarian principles. Most atheists (for example, d'Holbach) supposed that the individual's pursuit of happiness (i.e., pleasure) was compatible with the happiness of all. La Mettre was an exception here: in a move which his fellow atheists found disturbing, he defended a straightforwardly selfish and hedonistic 'morality' according to which one's own pursuit of pleasure took precedence over others' interests. According to La Mettrie, morality without God is founded in nature and seeks only to look after the interests of the individual. The true morality is purely naturalistic, and nature determines us to seek happiness in the satisfaction of our impulses.

La Mettrie was an exception in this respect among the 18th century materialist atheists. However, his atheism would anticipate a development of French Enlightenment atheism which would have horrified the abovementioned 'virtuous atheists', namely, the atheistic nihilism of De Sade.

The Marquis De Sade (1740-1814) introduced a new form of atheism into Europe. As Schroeder has noted, Sade presented the destruction of morality precisely as a project which the Enlightenment ideal of progress demanded, expressing this aim by availing himself of Enlightenment talk of an increase in freedom and rights.[2] According to Sade, philosophy helps us to extend our rights by freeing us from a heteronomous morality imposed from outside.[3] Morality as well as belief in God was to be subjected to the test of reason, and God's existence exposed as a 'chimera'; there are no spiritual substances but only matter in motion, and morality has no divine lawgiver to establish and guarantee it. Sade deprives moral norms of their traditional objective validity by exposing them as merely relative to our habits and prejudices.[4] Nothing stops us from pursuing our desires at the cost of others, and nothing is more satisfying than exercising our will to destroy and to inflict cruelty.[5] As Schroeder has pointed out, Sade regarded nature, which acts destructively, as demanding from us (as it were in the place of God) the harming and destruction of others. As the former notes, De Sade raises aggression and cruelty to a 'moral' norm that should be pursued, so that doing cruel things is made a requirement of a 'law' of nature: every failure to act with cruelty is a crime against nature.[6] This would establish a distinct tradition of atheist amoralism and which would find clear echoes in the atheistic work of Nietzsche in the nineteenth century.

The French Revolution (1789-94) would dramatically transform the power relationship between belief and unbelief in Europe: whereas before atheism had been 'high brow', discussed in the cafes and salons of Paris, henceforth it would set itself down among the people.[7] A strident unbelief became a real political factor in public life, as the anticlerical 'dechristianisation' period following the revolution would demonstrate.[8] The impact of the French Revolution in inspiring people to put the irreligious ideas of the Enlightenment into practice would extend beyond France to other European countries, and to the American colonies (although in the latter it would take a deistic rather than atheistic form). Through figures such as Thomas Paine (1737-1809) and Robert Owen (1771-1858) in Britain, and Emmanuel Kant in Germany the radical new ideas would find a voice, and throughout the nineteenth century practical atheism would keep its militant character.
References

Minois, Georges. Histoire de L'atheisme. La Fleche: Fayard, 1998.
Schroeder, Winfried. Moralischer Nihilismus: Radikale Moralkritik von den Sophisten bis Nietzsche. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2005.
Schroeder, Winfried. Ursprunge des Atheismus: Untersuchungen zur Metaphysik- und Religionskritik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts. Tubingen: Frommann-Holzboog, 1998.

Bibliography
Footnotes

[1]↑ Winfried Schroeder, Ursprunge des Atheismus: Untersuchungen zur Metaphysik- und Religionskritik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts (Tubingen: Frommann-Holzboog, 1998), 87.
[2]↑ Moralischer Nihilismus: Radikale Moralkritik von den Sophisten bis Nietzsche (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2005), 142.
[3]↑ Ibid.
[4]↑ Ibid., 143-4.
[5]↑ Ibid., 145.
[6]↑ Ibid., 146.
[7]↑ Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 411.
[8]↑ For the dechristianisation movement, see Ibid., chapter 14.

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/hi ... eenth.html




-----


Thinker: Jean Meslier

Jean Meslier (1664-1729) was a priest in the tiny Ardennes parish of Etrépigny. Although virtually unknown in his native France and in the UK (a brief extract from his work in Margaret Knight's Humanist Anthology, published in 1961, is one of the few mentions of Meslier in the English language), his Memoire (or Testament) amounted to a stunning declaration of unbelief. In effect, he told his former parishioners: "I never believed any of that religious nonsense. There's no God, there's no afterlife and the church helps tyrants like Louis XIV to keep you poor and exploited. You're on your own, but stand up to the bastards and you might just create a fairer world."

Meslier's basic thesis was expanded over several hundred hand written pages, whose very survival seems remarkable. Fortunately, he meticulously transcribed three copies which, with letters to his unsuspecting clerical neighbours, were found by his death-bed. In 1729 the establishment could be brutal in its treatment of heretics, and Meslier did not feel like dying for his views: "I did not wish to burn until after my death." However, he did not care what the furious authorities did with his corpse once the Memoire became known: "They can fricassee it," he wrote, "and eat it, with whatever sauce they like". Unable to burn him alive, they buried him in an unmarked grave, but not before his manuscripts had entered the lively world of illicit reproductions. One of them soon reached Voltaire, who distributed hundreds of copies to his friends.

Standing at 97 chapters long, the Memoire does not hold back on its deconstruction of Christianity and attack on the hierarchy of the Church. For Meslier the books of the Bible were the flawed, even fraudulent, works of those who wrote and copied them, of the same standing as "stories of fairies and our old novels", while Jesus was an "arch-fanatic ... equally mad, out of his mind, unhappy rogue, a man of the abyss, vile and despicable." The idea of the Holy Trinity seemed absurd to Meslier, who equates it to paganism, as was the notion of the host as the body of Christ – "an idol of paste and flour".

Historians argue about who was the first overt, post-Classical atheist but Meslier was arguably the first to put his name to an incontrovertibly atheist document. That this important event is largely unrecognised (Meslier was absent from both Richard Dawkins' and Jonathan Miller's recent TV series on atheism) is due partly to Voltaire who published, in 1761, a grossly distorted "Extract" that portrayed Meslier as a fellow-deist and entirely suppressed Meslier's anti-monarchist, proto-communist opinions. It seems too that the famous "last priest" aphorism, long attributed to Denis Diderot, flowed first from the pen of Meslier. The Memoire was almost forgotten until a Dutch humanist published 500 copies in 1864. The definitive, annotated French edition did not appear until 1970. Only fragmentary English translations exist.

The Memoire gives us a sense of the love Meslier had for his congregation, and his guilt for misleading them and failing to reveal his true feelings: "How I suffered when I had to preach to you those pious lies that I detest in my heart. What remorse your credulity caused me! A thousand times I was on the point of breaking out publicly and opening your eyes, but a fear stronger than myself held me back, and forced me to keep silence until my death." In life Jean Meslier may have chosen "to live tranquilly", but in death he was ready to launch his attack on the tenets of Christianity. Dismissing religion as cruel, fanatical, false and absurd he leaves a message for the congregation he clearly loved so much: "I hope, my friends, that I have given you a sufficient protection against these follies."


Dr Colin Brewer is co-producer of the play The Last Priest, an exploration of the life of Jean Meslier


http://newhumanist.org.uk/1425

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

by Rich Deem

The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, has written a book presenting his case for belief in theism. Having read the pre-reviews, I was looking forward to reading a fellow biologist's viewpoint on the evidence supporting the existence of God. Although Collins presents much of the evidence supporting a Christian worldview, he discounts nearly all of it in his discussions. For example, although Collins fully accepts the anthropic principle (and devotes an entire chapter to it in The Language of God), he rejects the origin of life as requiring any input from God. Collins present the standard high school textbook version for the naturalistic origin of life and seems unaware of the wealth of evidence that contradicts all naturalistic scenarios, saying "this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager his faith." Collins goes on to reject creationism (but seems to restrict the term primarily to the young earth variety), relegating virtually all of Genesis (other than Genesis 1:1) to being "poetic" and "allegorical." Another chapter is devoted to criticizing intelligent design, indicating that it is a "God of the gaps" approach "ironically on a path toward doing considerable damage to faith." Ultimately, the entirety of Collins's appeal for faith falls upon the design of the universe (which is covered rather superficially) and the existence of "moral law" among human beings. Collins rejects the idea that moral law is not universal, although he does not mention that things such as human sacrifice were once widely practiced among different societies.

Collins proposes that God designed the universe with such precision that humans would be the end result. Thus, although Collins believes in "theistic evolution," the only part he accepts as being theistic was the original design of the universe. All subsequent events were the result of naturalistic processes (although the end result was guaranteed to result in the evolution of humans because of God's specific initial design). At some point in the process (Collins identifies it as occurring ~100,000 years ago) God put a soul into a group of hominids, creating modern humans. This kind of creation would be indistinguishable from naturalism and, therefore, would provide no evidence for God's existence. Also, it could never be falsified. Collins calls it "BioLogos" ("bios" through "Logos"). Accordingly, "BioLogos is not intended as a scientific theory. Its truth can be tested only by the spiritual logic of the heart, the mind and the soul." Although Collins calls it "spiritually satisfying" and "intellectually rigorous", I think most believers would find it biblically troublesome and scientifically irrelevant.

Collins experience in coming to faith was interesting and is detailed in the beginning and end of the book. He grew up in an agnostic family, and knew at an early age that he wanted to be a scientist. At first, he was interested in the physical sciences, since "biology was rather like existential philosophy: it just didn't make sense." However, nearing the end of a Ph.D. program, Collins took a biochemistry course and was hooked. He applied for and was admitted to medical school, from which he graduated and began genetic research and a clinical practice. During one clinic, Collins was confronted by a Christian patient who asked him about his spiritual beliefs. He didn't really have an answer, but determined that he should confirm his atheism by studying the best arguments for faith. A pastor directed him to Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. Collins found the arguments compelling, and cites C. S. Lewis as the principle basis for his conversion. Why did Collins choose Christianity over all the other monotheistic religions of the world? Although he came to faith on the basis of evidence that is generally agreed upon by deists, Collins rejected deism because of the presence of the moral law, which seemed to represent God's personal involvement with His creatures. He recognized that the presence of moral law meant that God was holy and righteous, but was extremely concerned about his inability to live up to the demands of moral law on the basis of his best efforts. The answer that seemed best to him was Christianity, which is the only religion that claims to have a solution to the problem of sin that makes one absolutely righteous and justified before God.

Although The Language of God is an interesting book to read, I don't think it will be satisfying to believers or convincing to non-believers.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... e_god.html

---------

Mapping the Genome and Losing the Evolutionists
[youtube:2fwa3fkj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jDovtB1J44[/youtube]2fwa3fkj]