• Browse: About; New; Previous; Next
• Return to Letters Index
• Home to Positive Atheism

Atheists Likened
To Hitler, Stalin
[name suppressed by request
after the Abraham Smith scam]

• Perspective: Something About Marx, Lenin And Mao -- And Hitler from Kim Brown

From:
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 5:39 PM
Subject: pa-via_positive_atheism_index

Where are your scary quotes from evolutionists like Hitler, Stalin and the ones who molest children and rape and murder because they feel they are the higher species? How about the quotes from people who sit in there own personal hell because they know that today may be their last and then they will exist no longer? Are you afraid to show this face that hides behind the evolutionist and atheist?

So far I've found your site to be really biased. Where is the courage to show how we really feel about being an atheist and what horrible things we have done to the world? If we want to walk a positive walk we must face reality and history and learn from the mistakes of the past. Or is what Hitler did alright with you?

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To:
Subject: Re: pa-via_positive_atheism_index
Date: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 2:44 AM

Where are your scary quotes from evolutionists like Hitler, Stalin and the ones who molest children and rape and murder because they feel they are the higher species?

Send the quotes to me, and document them so I can verify, independently, that they are genuine quotes. Also, document that the individuals quoted "feel they are the higher species."
 

and what horrible things we have done to the world?

Speak for yourself. Unless you can show that I or any of the readers have done horrible things, please do not include us in this charge with your use of the word we.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From:
To: 'Positive Atheism' <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 1:36 PM
Subject: Here is two to get you started, I'll send more.

"No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, night be ruined with one blow. Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood."

"All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning. The ultimate cause of such a decline was their forgetting thatall culture depends on men and not conversely; hence that to preserve acertain culture the man who creates it must be preserved. This preservationis bound up with the rigid law of necessity and the right to victory ofthe best and stronger in this world. Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do notwant to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." From Hitlers Mein Kamp, a very frightning disposition.

Another question, if we live in a world that has come into existence by chance and there are no moral foundations except what is accepted by mankind, then isn't the definition of positive flexible to what an individual perceives as positive? Hitler thought he was positive and doing the world a favor. From where does an atheist draw moral code that favors the protection of human rights. This question has me puzzled and I would like to know your opinion. Thanks
DD

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To:
Subject: Re: Here is two to get you started, I'll send more.
Date: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 2:49 PM

Very Frightening indeed. This abuse of science is not unlike the abuse of science that resulted in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the existence of germ warfare, and other methods of madness.

Read the article An Evolutionist Looks at Modern Man by Loren Eiseley for a more realistic view of the meaning of evolution.
 

Another question, if we live in a world that has come into existence by chance and there are no moral foundations except what is accepted by mankind, then isn't the definition of positive flexible to what an individual perceives as positive? Hitler thought he was positive and doing the world a favor. From where does an atheist draw moral code that favors the protection of human rights. This question has me puzzled and I would like to know your opinion.

Your question presupposes many things that evolutionists do not say. You then proceed to set up a "straw man" -- a false, easily refuted pretense that nobody believes -- and then "knock down" that "straw man" argument. This form of dishonesty is common in letters we get from Christians, and serves only to demonstrate that many, many Christians show a fierce disrespect for truthfulness.

In brief, things behave according to their characteristics. If environmental conditions are a certain way, then amino acids will tend to form. Once this is done, t is only a matter of time and the right environmental conditions before life in some form thrives. It's not "chance" and it's not magic.

Your question also presupposes that some moral foundations are not man-made, and thus cannot be scrutinized or, if need be, adjusted. This is very dangerous thinking, such as that which Hitler and Stalin utilized. Both men had standards that were siomehow "above" discussion and "above" criticism. Out of one side of his mouth, Hitler spoke of the laws of God; out of the other, he made scientific-sounding pronouncements. Both forms of rhetoric were based upon the idea that "truth" is a matter of pronouncement, "above" or "beyond" man's scrutiny. With this kind of reasoning, unthinking men can be persuaded toward almost any atrocity.

Meanwhile, all pronouncements are man-made -- even those attributed to the gods. Science is the closest we have come to developing a method for discerning truth from falsehood. All moral methods have been developed by men and women. Some of these methods purport to be man-made and some are alleged to be of divine origin. Since none of those claiming divine origin can demonstrate the existence of the divine, I think they fail on that account alone. Why follow a moral system whose very origins are in question?

Also, most theists pick and choose which "divind" pronouncements to obey and which to ignore or reinterpret. For example, I know of no Christians who refrain from wearing mixed-fiber clothing, although this is as important to Old Testament law as is the pronouncements against adultery, murder, bestiality and homosexuality. So, then, even those who claim to follow divine pronouncements do at least some of their own thinking!

What you seem to be saying is that it is moral to act out of blind obedience. This, to me, is immoral, not moral. I can only be culpable if I do something wrong that I know is wrong. For this reason, I choose to think about what things I will do and what I will refrain from doing. Culpability is so important that I will not take someone else's word for it. To do so is immoral.

How do I know about human rights? Simple! I am human. As an atheist, I believe that self-consistency is the highest virtue. If I know what I don't want done to me, I know to refrain from doing those things to others. This is an inversion of Jesus' "Golden Rule." I personally tend toward whatever action, among several choices, which leads to the minimal amount of suffering. This does not mean that I choose whatever actions will bring me the least suffering, but what will bring the least overall suffering. This is what differentiates me from a hedonist, the fact that I strive for minimal suffering rather than maximal happiness.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From: ""
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: RE: Here is two to get you started, I'll send more.
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 15:22:59 -0700

Regarding

This form of dishonesty is common in letters we get from Christians, and serves only to demonstrate that many, many Christians show a fierce disrespect for truthfulness. What are you talking about?

This is a real question, not some kind of trick or underhanded blow to your world view. I have no disrespect for truthfulness at all, if that is what you are implying. I rather think that this statement is unkind and mean. You have typecast me unfairly. I will try not to do that to you, ok.

I have many close friends who are atheists who are not as bright as you, they have not been able to answer this question. You still have not answered this question concisely and to the point. You kind of danced on it a little. I stated the question, "there are no moral foundations except what is accepted by mankind( instituted), then isn't the definition of positive flexible to what an individual perceives as positive? " How does an atheist decide what is correct behavior and incorrect?

The natural process of mater does not set up moral codes and has nothing to do with the question, at least not to my knowledge. I could be wrong on that and am not above admitting my own ignorance.

So could you please clarify your answer for me.

Thanks
DD.

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To:
Subject: Re: Here is two to get you started, I'll send more.
Date: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 4:06 PM

The natural processes of organic matter is to strive for survival. Until man evolved, this was primarily the survival of the fittest individuals, passing its characteristics to its offspring.

With man this has changed somewhat. It is not the fittest individuals that survive, but the societies that develop the fairest and most consistent ethical and judicial systems whose members stand the best chances of long, productive lives.

The American experiment of Liberty has shown that Liberty is the basis of the ethical systems that best promote survival of humans. Liberty, according to Thomas Paine, always includes the concept of accountability. Without the concept of accountability, we are not talking about Liberty, but about hedonism. Thomas Jefferson said that "the legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

For example, I know of no Christians who refrain from wearing mixed-fiber clothing, although this is as important to Old Testament law as is the pronouncements against adultery, murder, bestiality and homosexuality.

The old testament laws are often misunderstood by many. Jesus was visibly angry at how many of the laws were interpreted and misused and expanded. A classic case is the Sabbath law, which Jesus , in the opinion of the legalists of the day, broke. They wanted to stone him to death for breaking the Sabbath. I wont pretend to be an expert on old testament law, but I did study the Sabbath law for 4 years, so as to understand the many opinions one finds in the world regarding it, especially dealing with cults like Korresh. And from that one would understand that many of the laws were a pointer, a symbol of an order to come. Just as when Jesus left, his followers did not keep the Sabbath on the Sabbath, but on the first day of the week, as a symbol that Christ had given them eternal rest and therefore the strict letter of the Sabbath law was abolished. This type of change is why you don't have many Christians protesting the use of mixed fiber clothing. But I'm sure there are some who would advocate it, so be careful who you say that to, ok.
 

What you seem to be saying is that it is moral to act out of blind obedience.

I never advocated following a blind faith. That would be ignorance, an ignorance in which many people follow on both sides of the debate. I, probably like you, look for the best evidence I can find, try to understand that evidence and follow what I can discern the evidence tells me is true. Many Christians speak of a blind faith and I don't know what they are talking about, I can only suppose that they are ignorant of the evidence for design.
 

I personally tend toward whatever action, among several choices, which leads to the minimal amount of suffering. This does not mean that I choose whatever actions will bring me the least suffering, but what will bring the least overall suffering. This is what differentiates me from a hedonist, the fact that I strive for minimal suffering rather than maximal happiness.

That sounds OK on the surface. You can find occasionally in New Age literature ( Like Alice Bailey) that what will cause the least suffering in the planet will be to exterminate all people who are not in harmony with the universe. They actually estimate that in the future 3 billion people will need to be taken out of the planet. They justify this action by saying that the persons will be reincarnated into perfect beings once the planet has come into harmony. So, buy murdering 3 billion they were doing everyone a favor, as you say, bringing the least overall suffering, in their opinion.

I understand that your wanting peace and for people to act with integrity and this example does not apply to your worldview. We can see from history that people who called themselves Christian, and people who called themselves atheist, murdered many people. A true Christian by definition would not reign terror down on people, it would be completely contrary to what Jesus taught, that people are drawn to God because of His love that he offered for them, not for their obedience. Out of this understanding of the example, Christians, if they are true Christians will be tolerant of others ideas and belief's and should hold a similar standard of values over time. Offering grace, tolerance and understanding to those who do not share the Christian view, esven to those who are violent to the Christian view. The example provided by 11 apostle martyrs and Jesus Himself.

How does the atheist hold to similar vales over time, as it may be possible for someone to fudge with the perception of what will bring the least amount of suffering, since what defines that is conceived within each individual?

Thanks for your intriguing dialogue.

Derrick D.

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To:
Subject: Re: Here is two to get you started, I'll send more.
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 4:21 AM

You are truly wicked. I get real tired of you people (almost always Christians) who twist what I say and then set forth to refute the skewed result. I know there is no biblical command that you incorporate the "straw man" ruse in making your case for Christianity. (Even the Bible is more dignified than this!) Where does this come from? Do you do this as a result of faith? Is this what spiritual is ? (I don't even know what spiritual means!) Please explain. Here is a case in point:
 

That sounds OK on the surface. You can find occasionally in New Age literature ( Like Alice Bailey) that what will cause the least suffering in the planet will be to exterminate all people who are not in harmony with the universe.

Even if all I had said in that section was the part about striving for minimal suffering, exterminating large numbers of people is still not my idea of minimizing suffering (especially considering that premature death constitutes suffering).

However, I said much more than this. How could you accuse me of thinking like this in light all that I said about Liberty and integrity?

You asked me where I get my morals and I told you. I made the case that theists get their morals the same way, though many deny that they are doing this.
 

I never advocated following a blind faith.

Then what should I call it when you flat-out take "God's" word for something? How do you even know it is "God's" word without making some sort of judgement as to whether an alleged Scripture is really from "God" and not mere pretence (Deut. xviii. 20-22)? And if you are, in fact, making some sort of judgement as to whether a given Scripture (the Bible; the Koran; the Upanishads; the "Mo" Letters; the Golden Plates of Joe Smith) is or is not the word of "God," then how do you differ from an atheist in this respect? How do you differ from an atheist who is making judgements on virtues and moral principles and the rightness or wrongness of certain behavior? You not only judge whether or not a Scripture (such as the Bible) is from "God," you also interpret the ones you deem bona fide.

Secondly, if good is good and evil is evil simply because "God" deems it so, then you are de facto following blindly. Contrawise, if "God" simply knows what is good and evil, and is subject to a system of good and evil that is independent of "God," then is subject to and subservient to something that is greater than he: the principles of good and evil. In this case, we don't need "God" to tell us good from evil, we can find that out on our own. We only need "God" if he is the source of right and wrong, the first cause of good and evil. In this case, our relationship to "God" is either one of obedience or disobedience. To think for ourselves becomes sin (Rom. ix. 20).
 

A true Christian by definition would not reign terror down on people, it would be completely contrary to what Jesus taught, that people are drawn to God because of His love that he offered for them, not for their obedience. Out of this understanding of the example, Christians, if they are true Christians will be tolerant of others

You have interpreted your Bible here. Did he or did he not state that "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" (Jn. xv. 6)? The Inquisitors used this commandment for centuries to justify burning my predecessors at the stake. Dating back to St. Augustine (fourth century), the passage, "And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled" (Lk. xiv. 23) was interpreted to mean that Christian faith is compulsory (that's what the word compel means, in Greek, Latin, and English). Adherence to Christian doctrine, including faith, is to be enforced by civil authorities.

Jesus also taught to obey the Old Testament, saying that, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mt. v. 18). The Old Testament not only forbids the wearing of mixed fiber clothing (because it symbolizes mixed-race marriages between Israelites and those tribes they were to conquer), but it also commands that when they conquer these tribes, they were to, in one case, "smite every male thereof witht he edge of the sword: but the the women ... thou shalt take unty thyself" (Dt. xx.13-14; cf. Dt. xxi. 10-14; Num. xxxi. 9, 35; see also Is. xiii. 15-16; Dt. xxviii. 30; Jer. vi. 11-12; Jer. viii. 10; Zec. xiv. 2.). All this madness (and this isn't the half of it) is either commanded or inflicted by the Bible god whom Jesus called "Father" and whom Jesus commanded his followers to obey.

Besides, any Christian that teaches the doctrine of Salvation reigns terror upon the people who believe it. What are you being "saved" from? What fate was so terrible that it took the death of "God's" son to save us from it? Can you imagine what terror goes through the mind of a child who has heard, for the first time, that "God" actually sends people to burn in Hell forever? Describe to me the natural response of a believer who reads the words of Jesus, saying, "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt." The Christian doctrine of salvation is the single most terrifying and terrorizing teaching that history has known. At least for the Jews, death ended the misery. Christianity seeks to prolong and magnify human misery forever. The suffering that the entire world endures, man and animal, for its ehtire lifespan, is but a drop compared to the suffering of a single individual cast into the Christian Hell.

The historical actions of the Church (Catholic and Protestant) are, from my reading, completely in line with the the spirit and the teachings of both the Old Testament and the New. This spirit can be summarized in a single word: terror. I will grant that today hardly any Christian bodies inflict bodily injury upon heretics. This is not from any enlightenment by Scripture, but is due simply to the fact that there are no truly Christian nations today. The rest of the world won't let them do this, and they know this, and have taught their followers a more human Gospel.
 

How does the atheist hold to similar vales over time, as it may be possible for someone to fudge with the perception of what will bring the least amount of suffering, since what defines that is conceived within each individual?

We, like Christians, revise our values as we see the need. Just like Christians now do not burn witches or own slaves, we revise our understanding through experience and learning and personal reflection. We are fallible and always learning. Humans have the longest childhood of any living thing on earth, and this speaks volumes about the human ability to ponder right and wrong, and just how complex these issues are and how tough they are to grasp.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From:
To: 'Positive Atheism' <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 5:41 PM
Subject: RE: Here is two to get you started, I'll send more.

Thank you. Have you read much from the scientists involved with the intelligent design movement? Take a look at www.arn.org, I would not expect it to change your world view, but you might enjoy the information and some of the books listed there.

I did notice some rather unbecoming information on your site regarding other peoples opinions and views. Even though I do not subscribe to the views that were posted which had your judgement cast upon them, don't you think that republishing the trash is kind of unbecoming and futile, only to give kind of a mean undertone to your site. I know others do it, but not everyone, perhaps you should consider it more deeply. It really reminded me of some of the liberal hate sites I have stumbled over on the net, purposed to make fun of others instead of offer a positive opinion.

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To:
Subject: Re: Here is two to get you started, I'll send more.
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 4:48 AM

I am currently studying the arguments in favor of the Anthropic Principle. I have written a little about it, but apart from myself, only one atheist has taken this movement on and described its origins and the mechanism of its philosophical argument. Not being a scientist or a historian of science, I cannot comment on the scientific claims made by the AP's advocates.

As for some of the tenor of our Letters section, we post this stuff because it is very, very common (unfortunately for all of us). I get it here all the time and delete many of the letters I get. However, I think the importance of showing the the process of countering this material outweighs any mean undertone the Letters section may convey. I have removed links to Jerry Billings' and Reid Iford's material (though it is still there and can be accessed in a round-about way). I also have been very careful not to post truly caustic third-party articles unless the point they make shines so brightly as to outweigh the negative aspects. I would place Ingersoll and Twain and Lewis in this category: all three are caustic but oh, does the force of their arguments shine forth! James Hervey Johnson is right on the borderline in this respect; Madalyn Murray-O'Hair only occasionally shines brighter than her causticity burns. Most of the material I have, though, is decent and very fair. I have been very careful and have hand-picked all this material myself. There is nothing here that I haven't read and got something out of.

As for "Coverage of the Inevitable Apocalypso," yes. This is unbecoming, but I don't think anyone can make a case that it constitutes "hate" material. It is entirely news. Specifically, it is news-as-humor, news that contains a twist of irony. I have been collecting these little "filler" articles for as long as I have known how to read. I have a collection of these little clippings (that I have personally clipped) that dates, unbroken, back to the 1960s. I remember the first one I actually cut out regarding a 14-year-old kid who got drunk and passed out on the railroad tracks -- and it was the intoxication that saved him from injury as a half-mile train passed over him. Biased? Yes. We have only two or three articles about stupid atheists (such as Chicago's Rob Sherman who beat his son in order to "put the fear of God into him." The rest are about stupid theists. Come to think of it, I haven't read about the antics of very many stupid atheists. I wonder why that is. Someone sends me about a half-dozen stories about stupid or scary theists every day. very few articles about stupid or scary atheists, though. There must be some kind of conspiracy going on in the press, or something.

Yes, we do offer the "Apocalypso" section and we also offer what you might consider a more positive opinion.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

From:
To: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 2:17 PM
Subject: Answering you last email

I would have to say that I'm shocked. I guess you did not read the entire email. As I said "I understand that your wanting peace and for people to act with integrity and this example does not apply to your worldview." I never implied that you would act as Alice Bailey suggests. From your knee-jerk reaction to a simple question I can only imagine what kind of treatment you must get from others who ask you questions.I'm sorry that you have come to such anger. I would like to have a civil conversation and ask you questions about how atheists think and how you deal with certain aspects of existence. I truly never intended to offend you and I apologize if I did when you misunderstood the example. Regarding the rest of your letter, it is easy to see that you have misunderstood scripture as badly as the people who burned others at the stake. You have not understood correctly the doctrines and you have determined the meaning of the testaments through the examples of the ignorant and uneducated. I can go into detail if you wish but do not want to type it all out unless you care to read it.

Your perception of Christians in History is also extremely skewed. Although there have been many horrible deeds done in the name of Christianity you can not blame true Christianity for the ignorance of people, in the same way one would not associate all people who believe in evolution with Hitler. The ignorance of some should not be superimposed upon the educated.

True Christianity can be summed up in this, LOVE.

If you would like a rebuttal to your views of Christianity, just let me know and I will share with you where I think you have misunderstood. The people of this world need to be able to understand one anthers views, without such understanding, we will be doomed.

Farewell, I wish you a positive journey.

Derrick D.

From: Positive Atheism <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To:
Subject: Re: Answering you last email
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 3:13 PM

I never implied that you would act as Alice Bailey suggests.

Then why even mention it? How am I supposed to react when you do this?

Had I simply ignored what you implied, would you have responded by implying that what you said applies to my philosophy? Get real!
 

From your knee-jerk reaction to a simple question I can only imagine what kind of treatment you must get from others who ask you questions. I'm sorry that you have come to such anger.

Yours has contained the most vicious implications and accusations of any e-mail we have received, and has gone about this in a manner that is at least as dishonest as any e-mail we have received. Check out our Letters section and see.

A simple question? No. You clearly implied that from the basis of my philosophy one could conclude that genocide is a good thing. You made this implication using a form of dishonesty that has been thoroughly documented on our website, both in the Letters section and under Writings, Clues.

You dishonestly implied that my philosophy could lead to genocide.

Earlier you (dishonestly) tried to link another element of my philosophy (evolutionism) with that of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.

This was not a "simple question" but lies at the core of the fierce bigotry against atheists and other non-Christians.
 

Regarding the rest of your letter, it is easy to see that you have misunderstood scripture as badly as the people who burned others at the stake.

If scripture says something that we don't want to see -- if it portrays a Jesus that is unlike the candy-coated one we learned about in Sunday School -- then we must be interpreting the sdripture improperly. I've heard that one before. It is only slightly more common than the "straw man" ruse and only slightly less common than that yarn about, "Oh, th ose people who burned millions at the stake weren't true Christians!" What were they, then, atheists? Muslims? Buddhists? Branch Davidians?

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.